Posts by Cassius

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

Yes Daniel, I agree with Pivot. Could you please go to one of the ETHICS forums - scratch that - I will set up a new forum because Utilitarianism will come up a lot - just a sec

Oh excellent that you found on google. I am paying for a little Google Adwords advertising so I will keep that up.

And I agree with the rest of your comments too.

Please drop by as often as you can, and especially consider starting new threads in any area of interest. Activity drives activity, and the way to be gods among men is to interact and study nature with like-minded friends!

You are very welcome Pivot. As a point of information for me, what is your background (if any) in Stoicism? I am interested to know how, from your perspective, you think these ideas compare to what is commonly discussed as stoicism in particular.

Also, did you say how you found this forum? If your experience in how you found it would be of help to us in getting wider exposure for it, please let us know. Most here are from the Facebook page, but not everyone by any means, and we definitely need to expand beyond that.