Posts by Cassius

Poster at Facebook: Epicurus seemingly retreated to the Garden according to DeWitt because of fear of his life, many modern people say this is a big reason why they won't be an Epicurean because they want to make change and involve themselves in politics. My question is: Was this retreat to the Garden a cultural thing (because of fear of his life and the little to no influence he would have had in the government type) or was it supposed to be a social statement? As in "live this way, it is the best way for humans to live".

Cassius: I remember a comment like that, but it's always necessary to keep an open mind as to the wider context. We don't have a clue as to the conditions on which people came to visit Epicurus in the garden - maybe he decided he didn't want to yell over the noise of others in the public square, and that was a good enough reason not to focus his work there. Or maybe, more importantly, he didn't CARE to compete in the public places, because he was more interested in training his own students to live their own lives properly than he was to put on a show to people who disagreed with him. I think there are multiple reasons for everything and it's improper to put too much focus on any one without more evidence.

Cassius: This is similar to the question of Epicurus' teachings about the gods. Many people argue that Epicurus developed his position about the real existence of "gods" to avoid being put to death for atheism. I don't think that is true at all, and I think that if Epicurus' followers (for example Lucretius) had detected insincerity in him on such an important point we would certainly know it and he would never have been taken seriously on anything else. If you know someone is lying to you on one of the most important questions in life are you going to trust them on less important questions? Was it SO important to be in Athens that Epicurus chose to lie on that issue and subject his entire philosophy to the charge of manipulation and insincerity? I don't think so at all. Some may reject his views on that or any other issue, but the charge of insincerity is far worse than being wrong.

Also - "My question is: Was this retreat to the Garden a cultural thing (because of fear of his life and the little to no influence he would have had in the government type) or was it supposed to be a social statement? As in "live this way, it is the best way for humans to live".

Think about it: How much more are we able to accomplish here in this MODERATED group, which requires admission for posting, keeping discussions on topic and throwing out clear disrupters, than if we had to shout over ever Stoic, Platonist, Marxist, and Religionist who happened to wander by and insisted on manipulating and dominating our conversations? Why isn't it likely that Epicurus faced VERY similar issues in "teaching in the public square"?

The answer to that question can be filed under "Why the argument that Epicureans should crusade against other people's pain rather than seek to enhance pleasure isn't what Epicurus did or taught."

Cassius: Not at anyone here, but sometimes I just want to scream! If Epicurus' goal had really been to teach people to live quiet, shy, retiring, lives in obscurity, does anyone really think that the best way for him to do that was to move to Athens and devote his life to churning out polemical books, letters, and essays challenging every key religious and philosophical principle held to be sacrosanct by every reputable leader in the city? Not only was he not running scared from persecution and hiding in obscurity, he was standing up in the middle of the enemy, throwing truth in their face, and challenging them to do it!

Over at the Facebook group this question was asked:

Poster: I have been intrigued by the rather famous remark of Karl Popper which states that evil has more weight than good. Or at least that there is "no symmetry between pain and pleasure". Popper believed that it is ultimately worse to suffer pain than it is good to experience pleasure because when we see a person suffering, a moral demand is made upon us to help alleviate that. But when we see a person experiencing pleasure no moral demand is placed on us to increase such pleasure. As Epicureans who insist on pleasure as the Good and pain/suffering as evil, how do you respond to this? Is Popper correct or are pleasure and pain a 1 to 1 relationship? Note: I side with Popper

Cassius: Good post because it gets right to a core issue. I haven't read Popper but I totally disagree with your summary of Popper's position. I disagree that (1) it is worse to experience pain than it is good to experience pleasure (if so then commit suicide!). I disagree (2) that a "moral demand is made on us" simply because we witness suffering. A "moral demand"? By whom? "Moral demands" of that type are totally illusory and pure idealism. If I see a friend in pain then it pains me. If I see an enemy in pain in many circumstances I can take pleasure in it. It all depends on context and categorical assertions of universalism are totally without foundation.

Poster: I think an Epicurean response to (1) is that killing oneself (or the benevolent world-explode argument) is an unnatural and unnecessary desire. Unnatural because our nature does not seek its own destruction, it often does the opposite and suicide is a pain causing activity, i.e to those left behind, to the psyche before the act is committed etc. (VS, 33 & 38). Further, I would think death, as the cessation of sensation, does no harm nor good for the person since it's equally ends pain and pleasure and the whole argument pivots on the dissymmetry between the two. To point (2), I admit my language was perhaps hastily used. Popper's exact words are "suffering makes a direct moral appeal for help, while there is no similar call to increase the happiness of a man who is doing well anyway." True, there is no strict demand, but the "call of the suffering" is still there while I suggest there is no "call of the happy".

Cassius: Well, as to (1) (that suicide is an unnatural and unnecessary desire, I do not share your premise that Epicurus held that we should only pursue those, so that isn't going to be grounds for us to find agreement (which we aren't going to find anyway, in all likelihood ) As to (2) I would also forcefully disagree. The "call of the happy" to share our pleasures with friends is an absolutely clear part of Epicurean philosophy as one of the most important ways of obtaining and securing our own happiness. As to "death, does no harm nor good for the person since it's equally ends pain and pleasure" I disagree as well - the STATE OF BEING DEAD is no harm, but the ending of our ability to experience pleasure is certainly undesirable, and Epicurus clearly stated that life is desirable.

Poster: Setting (1) aside due to a fundamental disagreement between our readings of Epicurus, I think (2) is more pivotal. I might agree (I'm not staunchly opposed to the idea...) that epicurus believed increasing a person's happiness was equally as important as reducing a person suffering. What I want to know is do you think such is correct? Whether or not that's Epicurus' position, it strikes me as intuitively wrong. For example, if you saw a child fall down and break her leg at the playground your reaction would probably be to aid her and comfort her suffering rather than to make the other kids happier than they already are with clown faces and telling jokes. I think it is humanly intuitive to reduce the suffering of those who needs such rather than to increase the happiness of those who already have such.

Poster: As it relates to Epicureanism, I agree that pleasure is the good and pain is evil. But if evil presses us more toward action than does pleasure, I believe the implication would be that pain ought to be reduced in as far as is practiceable and possible. On a more societal scale, as Popper's book initially suggested, reducing avoidable suffering ought to be a legitimate function of government where as increasing pleasure ought to be the domain of the private sector. Further, I think such a commitment allows an Epicurean to take a more active role in the world rather than to retreat to his own personal "Garden". While I don't think the latter is vicious, I think the former is necessary of a philosopher.

Cassius: "I believe the implication would be that pain ought to be reduced in as far as is practiceable and possible." And if you are consistent then you would retreat to your cave and eat bread and water, except for your desire to campaign to save the world from pain, which would be irreconcilable with your personal desire to escape pain.

Cassius: For whatever reason I did not see the post from Thad which now has this: " What I want to know is do you think such is correct? Whether or not that's Epicurus' position, it strikes me as intuitively wrong. For example, if you saw a child fall down and break her leg at the playground your reaction would probably be to aid her and comfort her suffering rather than to make the other kids happier than they already are with clown faces and telling jokes. I think it is humanly intuitive to reduce the suffering of those who needs such rather than to increase the happiness of those who already have such."

The answer here is as I have indicated elsewhere in the thread. Of course I think Epicurus was correct. Only NOW has Thad submitted a specific illustration rather than a totally broad generalization. All things being equal and the child who has broken her leg standing in the same relation to me as the other children, of course the broken leg should be addressed first. But the fact that the specifics are necessary shows the error in the overbroad generalization.

And as to be expected, here is the motivation - you wish to use Epicurus to support your politics: "reducing avoidable suffering ought to be a legitimate function of government where as increasing pleasure ought to be the domain of the private sector."

That's where most arguments like this lead - someone is looking to use Epicurus to support their own predetermined favored political program. But the problem is that Epicurean theory doesn't make someone a Tory or Labor or Democrat or Republican. Epicurean theory acknowledges the reality that nature has created humans in a particular way and given them particular faculties. Today Thad can use those observations to suggest that the world should made safe from pain, but the truth is that tomorrow the same observations can be used to justify inflicting tremendous pain on Thad and his associates should they decide to lead an invading army (or an invading horde of "migrants) that would destroy the happiness of ourselves and our friends. Epicurus clearly stated that Justice is not absolute, which is why Thad's political position is argued based on overbroad generalizations about ethics rather than from PDs 30-40.

There is a modern tendency to read Epicurus as advising the avoidance of exertion and therefore doing as little as possible in every field but the obtaining of necessary and natural pleasures (bread, water, shelter). I read Epicurus as advising the opposite- that we exert ourselves as intelligently as possible to maximize pleasure and minimize pain during the finite and limited term of life we have available to us. Therefore I believe Epicurus advised not only the study of "nature" but of ALL science that has any reasonable probability of increasing our happy living. And THAT is what happy living demands, not that we live in a cave an turn away from anything that would call us away from bread and water and cheese. But there are many people who DON'T like Epicurus who try to slam Epicurean philosophy as luddite and anti-knowledge, and I think nothing could be further from the truth. Even stupid "sciences" like astrology can be worth knowing enough about in order to help others defeat and dismiss them. Wide areas of geometry and math have excellent practical application and would have been embraced by the Epicureans - it is only when they are used to argue in support of religious and anti-natural philosophical positions that they are dangerous. The Epicureans would have known the obvious point - that the best way to prevent their misuse is to understand and use the valid aspects, while rejecting and dismissing the invalid aspects.

As participation in the forum expands over time, it will be very helpful if new participants will let us know about their level of background and opinions in the areas of Epicurean physics and Epicurean canonics/epistemology. Many people come here initially due to their interest in Epicurean ethics, but as we discuss and debate ideas about ethics, we are essentially just debating "words" without a means to resolve them unless we have a shared foundation from which to build and understand each other.

Epicurean ethical positions rest on underlying positions about the nature of the universe and the nature of knowledge. Our opinions about ethics will largely rest about on our prior opinions about those. Therefore as you begin to post, and as you introduce yourself, please drop back and let us know your positions on Epicurean physics and Epicurean canonics/epistemology. In the broadest of terms the areas of that will determine your conclusions about Epicurean philosophy in general are your views on the nature of the universe (the existence of supernatural gods, pre-birth or post-death existence of souls, existence of "ideals" elsewhere in the universe, or "essences" in this one), on the nature of knowledge (whether knowledge is possible, the role of reason in knowledge, and the relative status and role the senses, anticipations, and feelings). All of these will have a direct influence on one's opinions about ethical issues.

Of course you may be an absolute beginner in Epicurean studies and you may not yet have fully-formed opinions in these areas. Our purpose here is to learn about and apply Epicurean philosophy in our own lives, so don't be concerned that certain positions are required here before you participate. Just let us know in general about your perspective on these issues, and that will allow us to help fine-tune our discussions to make the experience here more helpful to everyone.

Thanks for joining us.

(And thanks to Daniel Van Orman for the idea to make this post, which will help us all as we go forward.)

For those who come here and read this first part, I am as of 11/19 encouraging new people to tell us about their reading history by reference to a list of standard sources, which I will encourage people to read in the "Welcome" post:

----------------------- Core Reading ---------------------------------

1 The Biography of Epicurus By Diogenes Laertius (Chapter 10). This includes all Epicurus' letters and the Authorized Doctrines. Supplement with the Vatican list of Sayings.

2 "Epicurus And His Philosophy" - Norman DeWitt

3 "On The Nature of Things"- Lucretius

4 Cicero's "On Ends" - Torquatus Section

5 Cicero's "On The Nature of the Gods" - Velleius Section

6 The Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda - Martin Ferguson Smith translation

7 "A Few Days In Athens" - Frances Wright

8 Lucian Core Texts on Epicurus: (1) Alexander the Oracle-Monger, (2) Hermotimus (3) Others?

9 Plato's Philebus

10 Philodemus "On Methods of Inference" (De Lacy version, including his appendix on relationship of Epicurean canon to Aristotle and other Greeks)

11 "The Greeks on Pleasure" -Gosling & Taylor Sections on Epicurus, especially on katastematic and kinetic pleasure.

12 Chance and Natural Law in Epicurean Philosophy - AA Long -

--------------------- Other Books On Epicurus You Have Read --------------------

1.

2.

3.

Daniel: You've posted two threads essentially on the issue of "maximal utility" with a lot of detailed pluses and minuses from an ETHICAL point of view. I've been wondering about how to begin to sort these out and I just realized that since you are new to the group we don't have a shared background in principles of Epicurean physics and Epicurean canonics/epistemology. Unless we have a shared foundation from which to build, which those provide, we are left largely debating ethical assertions that have no way of being resolved. The Epicurean ethical positions rest on underlying positions about the nature of the universe and the nature of knowledge that we first need to check and verify in order to sort out positions. In order to get these threads off in the right direction I will post this same post (or a variation) in both threads. We can cover these points either separately (as there may be different contexts) or we can handle them in one place, and I will then backtrack and post links to where we discuss them.

But in general, before we proceed further, in order for us to best understand your positions on Utilitarianism and Maximal Utility, please drop back and let us know your positions on Epicurean physics and Epicurean canonics/epistemology. And of course in the broadest of terms I am asking - What views on the nature of the universe, the existence of supernatural gods, pre-birth or post-death existence of souls, existence of "ideals" elsewhere in the universe or "essences" in this one, whether knowledge is possible, the role of reason in knowledge, the relative status of the senses, anticipations, and feelings -- things like that. All of these will have a direct influence on one's opinions about ethical issues.

(And thanks also Daniel because your posts caused me to think about the issue and add this to the "Welcome New Participants" forum - Request For New Participants )

Daniel: You've two threads essentially on the issue of "maximal utility" with a lot of detailed pluses and minuses from an ETHICAL point of view. I've been wondering about how to begin to sort these out and I just realized that since you are new to the group we don't have a shared background in principles of Epicurean physics and Epicurean canonics/epistemology. Unless we have a shared foundation from which to build, which those provide, we are left largely debating ethical assertions that have no way of being resolved. The Epicurean ethical positions rest on underlying positions about the nature of the universe and the nature of knowledge that we first need to check and verify in order to sort out positions. In order to get these threads off in the right direction I will post this same post (or a variation) in each of the threads. We can cover these points either separately (as there may be different contexts) or we can handle them in one place, and I will then backtrack and post links to where we discuss them.

But in general, before we proceed further, in order for us to best understand your positions on Utilitarianism and Maximal Utility, please drop back and let us know your positions on Epicurean physics and Epicurean canonics/epistemology. And of course in the broadest of terms I am asking - What views on the nature of the universe, the existence of supernatural gods, pre-birth or post-death existence of souls, existence of "ideals" elsewhere in the universe or "essences" in this one, whether knowledge is possible, the role of reason in knowledge, the relative status of the senses, anticipations, and feelings -- things like that. All of these will have a direct influence on one's opinions about ethical issues.

(And thanks also Daniel because your posts caused me to think about the issue and add this to the "Welcome New Participants" forum - Request For New Participants )

Wow Daniel again thank you for the effort involved in these posts. They are all so intricate and detailed, even though you have posted general guidelines about how you think the topics are best approached. Is there a way to summarize that in a thumbnail way? I gather there are FOUR separate posts (at least)? Perhaps a map or guideline as to how you think the subject might best be approached OVERALL?

Another aspect of the question: How are the two threads DIFFERENT?

Actually yes Hiram I am thinking that rather than undertaking a set schedule, we could just do a one-shot deal with a couple of us answering a list of questions, or some other similar track that would make for a reasonable-length summary. Sort of like:

1. Intro to the program as to subjects covered
2. Introduce the speakers / participants
3. Moderator pose the questions and let the speakers/participants address them.
4. List of questions, all revolving around the major focus of Epicurean philosophy, what makes it unique, what is misunderstood:
   1. (i'll have to come back to this to flesh it out)

Yep - and Hiram I am also thinking in terms of that QA session that you and Harrington Andros did several years ago. I thought that was well done and the format is effective for an introductory discussion.

It seems clear that video blogging is growing to be more and more popular, and it might currently be the best way to reach new audiences. I am thinking of relatively short (definitely less than 30 minutes; maybe 15 minutes or less) video presentations that can be digested in one viewing. Some of us are getting some practice by participating in the Norman DeWitt book review discussions, and it would not take much more effort to organize a set of questions for discussion that can then be edited and packaged into a real video blog or at least a couple of introductory video presentations.

The purpose of this thread is to start discussion and planning, so anyone who has ideas on this please add to the thread.

WOW that is great! Thank you for posting that and feel free to post anything similar because as you can tell I (at least) believe that our GrecoRoman heritage is directly related to Epicurean philosophy. We look forward to getting to know you better!

Hiram I presume here you mean that Nietzsche was saying, as he complained against the Stoics, that it is wrong for philosophers to try to put "reason" or some other construct in the place of feeling? I think you're saying that but I was wondering about the use of "usurp reason" as maybe meant to be "usurp feeling"

Quote from Hiram

In other words, I think by this N was referring to the many ways in which a philosopher may usurp reason and replace it with other parts of our nature.

Right, we need to save the good stuff for Daniel's thread! But one of the things I will want to cover is what Pivot just pointed out - that no matter what people say, they are really doing what brings them the most pleasure. That is an argument that is brought up a lot, and I think one very important aspect in addressing it is not to get lost in the trees and not see the forest. Yes it can be observed that people do what they think is most pleasing to them in a very general sense, even it that means embracing pain.

But for a lot of people (I think) that argument ends up being circular and confusing and leads them to conclude SO WHAT? If pleasure is the motivation behind everything, including seeking pain, then why are we even bothering to have this conversation?

And we can't let people get confused and drop out at that point, because that's NOT the real issue they need to understand. The real issue is that by our proofs in Epicurean physics and canonics, we show that the COMPETING ideas of motivations (idealism, rationalism, supernatural religion) are FALSE, and it DOES make a difference that we examine people's motivations. Because the root of PLEASURE is the faculty given us by nature as the "go" signal of life. That puts pleasure in an entirely different status than idealism, rationalism, and supernatural religion, which are at best wishful thinking and probably in truth fraud.

"That is why that I disagree that all pleasures must be sought." Yes as you state we are together on that. All pleasure is desirable by definition, but we certainly should not pursue those pleasures which will bring us pain that outweighs the reward.

I think what we are striving toward here is precision and clarification of terminology so that we avoid as much confusion as possible.

Eternal life, for example, is not possible for us, so to yearn after it brings pain that I cannot see to be worthwhile, and so we work to avoid that pain by study of nature and understanding of our natural limits.

On the other hand, life is desirable, so we work to protect and enjoy our lives to the extent possible too.

Both are at the same time true, and should be obvious, yet because of centuries of confusion and false religion and nihilism they are not obvious to many people. And those who are confused can turn out to be enemies and harm us, or simply be lost to us as friends who could otherwise have enhanced our happiness and theirs too.

So it seems to me much of the benefit and purpose of Epicurus' work was to move in that direction and present a framework which people can understand and use productively. And one of the best ways we can do that is to talk among each other, sharpen our own presentations, and then enhance our own lives by extending that message to others (thus our recent exchange on graphic memes, blogging, etc.)

That is one aspect of the usefulness of a forum like this - to serve as sort of a training camp where people can get basic ideas arranged in a proper foundation before they undertake their own "outreach" in their own local geographic area or circle of activity.

Eoghan Gardiner posted this at his blog, and I am linking here because I want to preserve my comment:

Eoghan: Pleasure is the goal - it's our only goal, EVERYTHING ELSE is either a means to that goal or at least a way to avoid a pain. Hopefully this adds something to the fantastic conversations we've been having here on this topic the past few days. http://hedonismepicureanireland.blogspot.ie/2018/05/pleasu…ng-else-is.html

Cassius' Comment:

Very good post! In my own thinking lately these two things go hand in hand (1) Pleasure is the end goal because it is the only thing that is in and of itself desirable, and nothing has any reason to be called desirable unless it brings pleasure (or reduces pain, which is saying the same thing). But also implicit in the same point, and in this blog post is (2) there are MANY things that can bring pleasure, and not just the obvious food/wine/music/etc, but also, under the right conditions, abstractions such as idealism and rationalism and even supernatural religion. And these abstractions, being mental, can bring MORE pleasure than the ordinary food/wine/music/etc.

The point is that ALL SORTS of actions can bring pleasure, and we have to evaluate both long and short term consequences. Can idealism and rationalism and religion bring long-term pleasure? Certainly they CAN. And if they do in a particular case, then an Epicurean has no reason to criticize that person's choice (see PD10). BUT WE CAN'T FORGET EPICUREAN PHYSICS AND CANONICS. We can admit that idealism and rationalism and supernatural religion can indeed bring pleasure in some cases (we have to - it's obvious that they can, at least for short periods) BUT AT THE SAME TIME we maintain that idealism and rationalism and supernatural religion are CONTRARY TO NATURE because they are based on FALSE premises. And that means, since they are contrary to nature and based on falsehood, that they are not good bets for producing productive long-term results. And that's why we don't follow idealism and rationalism and supernatural religion, and why we urge our friends not to do so as well.

OK I have created another thread on the "blending" issue. I suspect that for purposes of our current discussion that issue is a tangent, and should be set aside until later, but that's one purpose of forum software like this -- we can pick up the thread and continue the discussion at any appropriate point later.

The issue of whether pleasure and pain can "blend" together has come up in another thread. I am not prepared at the moment to post at length on the issue, but my understanding is that in Philebus (and perhaps elsewhere) the argument that pain and pleasure can "blend" together is suggested by Plato to be an argument for why Pleasure cannot be the guide / goal of life. If I recall, the issue is something to the effect that if they blend together to form a third category of feeling, and if reason is needed to identify the components, separate them, and make decisions about them, then REASON becomes the ultimate arbiter of things that are desirable and undesirable, and therefore Pleasure and Pain are dethroned. I may have the argument partly or completely wrong, but I remember it being an important argument that also relates to PURITY of pleasure. I am posting this here to mark the spot for a discussion of this topic when someone has the time to unwind Plato on it.

Daniel: When you write "My claim is pleasure and pain are not defined as the lack of one another - they may both be present at the same time" I think you are right and that is proper phrasing. In our total experience, my head can be experiencing pleasure while my foot is in pain. In any moment we are experiencing multiple sensations, some of which are pleasurable and some painful. I write this only as a reminder of a point I made earlier that there is a very technical dispute in Plato about whether pain and pleasure can mix together to form a "third" feeling, and that if I understand correctly, Epicurus held that they do NOT mix in that way. Just keep that in mind for future reading - and I write this for others who might read the thread as much to you, Daniel, since I hope what we are doing in these threads is building discussions that will be useful for others to read for years to come!

Oh - now I see why I wrote that. Daniel you wrote: ""more red does not undo green, but blends with green to make yellow". I have no idea how pleasure and pain blend. Maybe it is heterogeneous, like water and oil shaken together. Maybe it is homogeneous, like hydrogen and oxygen combining to make water." That's the terminology that concerns me, but as you say you are not taking a position on how or whether they "blend." That's the point to reserve for future reading and comparing to Plato's criticisms of pleasure in Philebus. If you admit that they "blend" to create a new third type of feeling, as I understand it that opens up a series of logical issues which Plato will exploit against you, primarily in terms of how you will require "reason" to un-blend them, at which point you are led down a rabbit trail that reason is more important than pleasure and pain, and ultimately replaces them as the goal/guide of life. Again, that's a topic for another time, and probably another thread.

My comments which I will interject - I hope it is clear to what I am responding.

(1) Pivot: "I agree with you that Epicurus was not against having much, but I believe he was against actively toiling for more than is necessary for one's freedom from pain." <<< I think in another thread (or maybe this one earlier) we discussed my concerns with the terminology, and this is another example. If we are Epicureans who fully endorse and do not suppress pleasure, then we equate "freedom from pain" with an experience full of active and ordinary and contemplative and mental and physical pleasures - all types, and we all understand that this is the goal. And if we accept that premise, then we don't care for additional pleasures past that point, because indeed our experience is full and anything above that would be simply variation - and not expanding our full experience of pleasure. IF, unfortunately, we don't accept the meaning of "freedom from pain" to be "pleasure" and "complete freedom from pain" to be "full pleasure," or if we are talking to non-Epicureans, then the terminology is probably dangerous and confusing. (And to be honest, even here with the three of us talking, I am not sure whether we are agreed on the fundamental point.) So just as a comment, and not as a criticism, I think we have a real challenge here to decide how to communicate - even among ourselves, with sentences like that. I hate to think we have people who will come to the forum, read "I agree with you that Epicurus was not against having much, but I believe he was against actively toiling for more than is necessary for one's freedom from pain," and think that this is an instruction to lie on a cot in a cave with a supply of bread and water. Tell me what you think of my concern - unnecessary, overblown, or in fact that we don't agree on what is implied with "freedom from pain"?

Daniel Van Orman could you please add that question here: Comparing Epicurus With Utilitarianism