Posts by Cassius

Exactly Amnoz! All we have to do is ask our animals and they will tell us, because they are unpolluted and unperverted!

Torquatus in On Ends: "If then the doctrine I have set forth is clearer and more luminous than daylight itself; if it is derived entirely from Nature's source; if my whole discourse relies throughout for confirmation on the unbiased and unimpeachable evidence of the senses; if lisping infants, nay even dumb animals, prompted by Nature's teaching, almost find voice to proclaim that there is no welfare but pleasure, no hardship but pain—and their judgment in these matters is neither sophisticated nor biased—ought we not to feel the greatest gratitude to him who caught this utterance of Nature's voice, and grasped its import so firmly and so fully that he has guided all sane-minded men into the paths of peace and happiness, calmness and repose?"

And greetings to you from the USA!

I need to add to my opening welcomes -- can you let us know how you found the forum? We're constantly looking for ways to get the word out more efficiently, so it would be helpful to know how you found us.

Welcome Amnoz ! When you get a chance please introduce yourself and let is know about your background in Epicurus. Thank you for joining us!

So given my last post I do agree with much or most of what you wrote, which I see as very appropriate comparison of costs and benefits . As I see it, however, the issue where this discussion helps the most is in articulating and preparing for the question that I think exists in every new student of Epicurus when they first hear the discussion and think to themselves "What does he mean by 'absence of pain?'"

I think unless we take great pains to clarify this early, most normal and healthy young people will naturally be put off by what they will see as the apparent anti pleasure pro ascetic bias of the terminology, which conveys a meaning that I do not think Epicurus in fact intended to convey.

Choose pleasurable activities carefully so as not to suffer unnecessary significant pain that in your context "outweighs" the pleasure? Absolutely YES.

Choose pleasurable activities ONLY if you can be sure that NO pain will result from them? Absolutely NOT, and that implication has to be firmly dismissed.

That is a very articulate post Pivot, thank you! I would first say that I think much of the importance of this question is what is "Unsaid" and thereby the possibility of confusion. I gather that you firmly equate in your mind "absence of pain" as a pleasurable experience, and, therefore, you have no issue considering the concepts to be largely interchangeable. You identify pleasure in absence of pain which therefore makes it desirable.

I do not believe that "most people" think in those terms, and because they do not the use of this phrasing is dangerous. It is my observation that "most people" today are so much under the influence of "virtue ethics" or the idea that "meaning" must come from something other than the feeling of pleasure, that they are unable to interpret "absence of pain" as anything other than a form of nihilism, which is a tremendous danger. Nihilism adds up to the negation of pleasure and the negation of life, and I believe Epicurus did or would have considered its modern form to be a major enemy.

So while I have no issue with discussing absence of pain if the premise is clear that we are talking about one of many forms of pleasure, I think that "many" people are not in fact doing that - those who do it intentionally are using deceptive wording to imply that there is something in life they believe is more desirable than pleasurable feeling that is separate and distinct from pleasure. And thus they reconcile Epicurus with stoicism or idealism or whatever is their favored form of "meaning."

1 - Good points Pivot

2 - Good grief I am sorry Daniel! For some reason when I first read your post above I did not realize what thread we were in and that you were replying to Pivot! My fault entirely and I should not have thought there was anything unusual about your wording. "Negligent reading" on my part!

"I think Epicurus taught different pleasures have different desirabilities." <<< Yes Daniel and you and I are totally in agreement with that. I think that Pivot, however, was stating a different position, at least initially.

Now here - "There are many times I think pleasure and pain come together, such as when one feels both happy and sad at the same time." That is definitely the case, but the issue I think Epicurus was aiming at is whether the two (pleasure and pain) are a mixture into a new third substance, or whether they retain their discrete qualities (sort of like oil and water, which can be shaken together but don't really mix.

Before I go further on that point let me ask you this: Have you read Norman DeWitt's Epicurus and His Philosophy which is discussed throughout this site? if you have not, I urge you to get that book, as it presents Epicurean philosophy in a systematic way that I don't think is equaled by any other book. Of course you may disagree with some of its interpretations, and of course you may disagree with Epicurus on something, but it's not possible to decide whether you agree or disagree til you really understand Epicurus' position.

Having said that, my reading from DeWitt and elsewhere indicates that this issue of mixing of pleasure and pain is very deep, and arises from arguments started by Plato and others to which Epicurus was responding. Possibly you are not concerned with the issue of "only two - pleasure and pain" as much as you are concerned with whether they "mix." In order to understand that you will need to fall back to what Plato was arguing AGAINST the idea of using pleasure and pain as the guide of life, and that is more complicated than I can address in this post.

Let me know if you have the time and inclination to pursue that, because if you do (and I very much recommend it) there are a couple of sources you will want to read. one of them is Gosling and Taylor's "The Greeks on pleasure" which is not easy to find, but is available through any library. that book traces the history of the arguments about pleasure from the beginning up through Epicurus, and I think it is pretty much indispensable to understanding the big picture. But I would not recommend you start there - if you have not read it, I recommend starting with DeWitt, after which you will have the global view and then be in much better position to check this very detailed issue.

Also, SOME of the aspects of this issue are discussed on my page here but I have not succeeded in polishing that to the point it needs to be - it is currently more of a list of points rather than a good narrative argument.

Don't let my stopping at this point in the post discourage you. If you are motivated to pursue this there are many aspects to discuss and I would like nothing more than to follow along with you as you check these sources, and I am sure I would learn from discussing it with you as you go through. This is a tremendously important issue and far too few people are interested in it.

Wow - well stated Naw ka!

Quote from Naw ka

I think that freedom to think and to judge for our self is fundamental and always try to learn more because there is no absolute truth and no ultimate goal except pleasure which is our highest good

and:

Quote from Naw ka

I would like to implement Hedonism in our daily life and to solve today's problems based on Epicurean approach and philosophy

I hope you will accept this as your invitation to help our little band here on the forum, Naw ka! Here our goal is not to be a tool of Facebook or a plaything for anyone else. Our goal here is to study and promote the philosophy of Epicurus, and we need all the help we can get in writing, making "memes," and doing all the things that are necessary in today's world to "spread the word." --

Welcome aboard!

Welcome Naw ka ! When you get a chance please introduce yourself and let is know about your background in Epicurus. Thank you for joining us!

No issues - thanks for posting and look forward to continuing to talk with you!

Daniel your post is worded oddly. Are you responding to someone else in another post?

Eoghan, I think he is referring to first modern presentation on Samos. Christos' group based in Athens puts on a yearly Symposium - some links are here:

2018 Panhellenic Symposium of Epicurean Philosophy - Athens Greece

6th Annual Panhellenic Symposium Of Epicurean Philosophy Is This Weekend in Athens!

If you follow these threads there should be links to lots of pictures and agendas from prior events.

Daniel I wonder if you could post some screen shots of the program in use.

Also, what is the data you are putting into the database? It would probably be helpful to post a list of the source material so that it would be clear what it is possible to find by searching the database.

Thank you Christos! Wow that is great! I am going to my email now and will make sure these are posted - and I will investigate the issue of why you couldn't post them directly.

I have now added the photos to Christos' original post.

I'll make notes and comment as we go through:

1. As usual, this is the issue: "Epicurus' idea that maximum pleasure is freedom from pain." -- Our disagreement is that I believe Epicurus clearly did not mean this statement in the way you interpret it, in terms of "every respect equivalent." As PD3 says, "The magnitude (quantity) of pleasure reaches its limit in the removal of all pain." "Absence of pain" is a measure of quantity, and quantity is only one aspect of pleasure, and not the most important aspect. "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."

2. "Didn't Epicurus also believe that we should not seek that which is unnecessary for happiness, but we should enjoy them if they were to come to us?" To this I would say NO - if by the question you mean this to be THE overriding rule. It is clearly "a" rule by which we should structure our lives to be sure that we do not enslave ourselves to desires that we cannot achieve. But "greater pleasure" is the goal and even that rule - and all choices - are governed by the final goal - greater pleasure. "And since pleasure is our first and native good, for that reason we do not choose every pleasure whatsoever, but will often pass over many pleasures when a greater annoyance ensues from them. And often we consider pains superior to pleasures when submission to the pains for a long time brings us as a consequence a greater pleasure."

3 - "If the goal for Epicurus is pleasure, and if "pleasure reaches its maximum limit at the removal of all sources of pain," is the goal not then complete freedom from pain? " -- YES BUT - only in terms of quantity! If one confuses quantity for quality, then one has confused the goal just as surely as the stoic who confuses "virtue" for the goal.

4 - Now, as to being free from pain being pleasurable, we do indeed agree, but the overriding premise here is "for the living." This is where DeWitt emphasises the point that pleasure, pain, etc. have no meaning except for the living! If we are alive there is nothing mysterious about what we are doing - we are at least going about the daily affairs of life in which we find pleasure if we allow ourselves to and if our circumstances do not prevent it. Clearly, life is worth living at whatever stage we find ourselves, unless we are forced to be in continuing unbearable pain without hope of relief. Life is desirable " 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."

5 - Now here you are separating yourself from the more crusading ( ) of those who focus on "absence of pain" as the full Epicurean definition of "the highest pleasure." I refer to when you say: "I erred if I tried to argue that freedom from pain in the absence of any pleasure whatsoever is desirable. But I do think freedom from pain always results in pleasure in any practical sense." My observation is that most of the time the "no pain" argument is combined with the katastematic/static pleasure argument, and the position taken is that "absence of pain" ("katastematic pleasure") is some new and higher "state" totally separate from the normal pleasures of life, totally separate from any sensual pleasure that can be named, or in your term a "practical" pleasure - and in fact - not a sensual pleasure itself. If you are not going in that direction it will not be necessary to elaborate, but for anyone else reading this thread, this argument is frequently found on the internet, but the opposite position is taken in Boris Nikolsky's "Epicurus on Pleasure," in the section on Epicurus in Gosling & Taylors "The Greeks on Pleasure" and in various other resources that can be pointed to here.

Thank you again for another useful exchange. Must of this turns on one's perspective on pleasure, and the closer we examine that issue the better off we are. As I type this I seem to remember that you made a comment that I should have addressed with this:

Oh - here it is - you wrote: "So why is it that pleasure reaches its maximum limit at the removal of pain, unless one can claim that any increase in pleasure is simply an increase in freedom from pain (which seems untrue)?"

I think that is a KEY point that also leads to very divergent views. To me, it is crucially foundational to emphasize that Epicurus stressed that there are ONLY two categories of feelings - pleasure and pain. In any measurement system, if the universe is composed of only two components, then in rigorous terms YES - the absence of one IS exactly the measure of the presence of the other, and vice versa. I believe that if one starts with this canonical proposition a lot of confusion is addressed. "Pleasure" = "absence of pain" becomes an obvious truism and absolutely non mystical, just as in the jelly bean jar analogy one can judge the quantity by saying "jelly beans" = "absence of air" and "absence of air" = "jelly beans." YES, this is true in terms of quantity, but the effect of eating air is much different than the effect of eating jelly beans!

IF one starts with this proposition, which I believe derives from the logical arguments that Epicurus was using against the Platonists (as referenced here) then the "problem" of evaluating the "absence off pain" statements in the letter to Menoeceus and PD3 evaporates. As I see it, the reason PD3 is so highly placed is for exactly that reason. The PDs were ordered largely in terms of priority of who most urgently needed to be defeated in argument (in education).

PD1 - the religionists who say that god controls human affairs must be defeated by showing that gods are unconcerned with men.

PD2 - pretty much everyon who argues that death is a state of suffering to be avoided at all costs (such as by the adoption of false philosophies of virtue) must be defeated by showing that death is absence of sensation, and all evil comes through sensation.

PD3 - the Platonists and others who argue that pleasure cannot be the guide of life because it can never be satisfied, that there is always a "higher" amount to which we would like to achieve, and that pleasure can always be improved must be defeated by showing a logical argument that there IS a limit to the pleasure which can be experienced in human life, and that the limit is the total elimination of pain from our experience. This becomes the logical "goal" which replaces serving gods, virtue, etc as the statement of the "divine guide of life" as Lucretius called it.

I think the problem has largely arisen because the context of PD3 - the necessity to meet and defeat the arguments of Plato in Philebus and elsewhere, have dropped from sight, and people no longer see the relevance of the argument. Thus the "absence of pain" argument has been left as a "floating abstraction" without anchoring to practicality, leaving it a ready tool for those who want to distort it into a Stoic sword. Obviously this problem existed in Cicero's time as well, since he makes use of it to argue that Epicurus was confusing, but back then everyone knew that Epicureans embraced "ordinary" pleasures and lived active lives (reference Atticus, Cassius, and Lucretius and Epicurus themselves in terms of their crusading spirit). But as the texts were lost and Stoic/Christian ethical viewpoints took power by fire and sword, the essential context fell further and further away to the point where today it is a major challenge to even get anyone to consider it.

Thank you for the very detailed continuation. I will try to do each point justice, but I think our different conclusions stem from very different premises.

Several times in your comments I observe comments which to me seem to focus on pain. For example, I would not agree with "pleasures must be ranked based on their capacity to achieve freedom from pain." I see pleasures as being very subjective, and I would not presume to judge someone else's ranking. If someone wants to give up years of life in order to spend five minutes "on the mountaintop" because he finds that pleasure so intense as to be worthwhile, I would not presume to second-guess that choice, and I do not believe Epicurus would either. "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."

So when you write "because both the toil to achieve such pleasures and the anxieties accompanying them will render them, in the end, "un-free" from pain" I simply look at the goal totally differently. The goal as I understand Epicurus is pleasure - which is not an abstraction or a state, but pleasureable living - the accumulating of common ordinary pleasurable experiences. I wish to purchase those with as little pain as possible, but as a human being it is not possible to live without pain. I minimize it to the extent possible, but I am not here to escape pain as my primary goal - my primary goal is to experience pleasure, without which no pain would be worthwhile.

As for this "I would contest then the idea that the vessel of human life cannot be expanded" I should be clear. When I say "cannot be expanded" I mean simply that at SOME point it is ended by death. Within that scope there is a huge variety of length and experiences - some never escape childhood, some live past 100. There is a limit set by death, but a wide variety of time within that.

Also I never would see it fair to speak in these terms: "If pleasure is simply dopamine" While it is true that the effect of pleasure is to crowd out pain, that is not the PURPOSE of pleasure. Pleasure is desirable in itself; the crowding out of pain is secondary.

"So it is not a problem that the vessel is not full, it is enough that it consists of no pain." And this is the position that calls out to me ; "Then why not commit suicide?" There is certainly no pain in being dead, and if "absence of pain" taken literally and without reference to pleasure, is the overriding goal, then a quick death is exactly the ticket.

All discussions like this are extremely helpful - at least to me - because this is a huge difference in perspective. People who come from such different perspectives may never agree, but it is very helpful to articulate the difference in perspective as clearly as possible.

(I am sorry I was interrupted during this post but I think my reply is at least partly coherent.)

But I do want to repeat that I think what we are discussing is the most important topic possible for people studying Epicurus to discuss.

Great - as soon as I can I will add this to the list of Epicurean sites at Epicurustoday.com, and my personal RSS feed, so I can track new posts.

I like the new icon! No shy retiring frightened piglet, but an Epicurean mascot ready to fight, just like Gullinbursti. I still remember that jbaker first told me about him and Freyr.

GREAT Eoghan! Blogging for oneself is one of the best ways to get things to come together in your own mind, as you try to explain things to others.

Wow, thanks for the detailed discussion Eoghan. Here are some initial further questions I would raise:

A - Haven't we always been taught that nothing good comes easily? Why should the best part of life be easy to obtain? I see people around me suffering and dying in misery and pain all the time. They didn't find a happy life easy to obtain. Doesn't that show that Epicurus was wrong?

2. Things which people pursue in modern society such as excess wealth, power and others opinion have no limit, they can never be sated even for a short time on the contrast things provided by Nature can be gained easily and sated easily such as food, warmth and relaxation. Modern people have a wrong view on what makes them happy.

<<< Yes, as to those who are in fact pursuing excess wealth and other limitless goals. But what about the great numbers of people who in fact live humble lives, but who find themselves trampled into the dust by many factors, many of which are out of their control, regardless of their own attitudes? What about them? Doesn't their tragic situation invalidate Epicurean philosophy, or at least mean that it is worthless to them?

----------------

B - Ok, we won't go to extremes like killing ourselves, After all, moderation in all things, right? But I hear you saying that the simplest life is the best. If I really want the best life, shouldn't I go ONLY for bread, water, and a cave to get out of the weather? That would be the purest application of Epicurus, wouldn't it?

4. Epicureans are ascetics, bread and water can easily be attained and are an easy pleasure to get (of course in modern times there are a lot more easily got foods) but this doesn't mean that we can't partake in other pleasures, in fact we definitely should but just remember that bread and water are always there, if other pleasures can't be got.

<<< according to dictionary.com, ascetic means: 1. a person who dedicates his or her life to a pursuit of contemplative ideals and practices extreme self-denial or self-mortification for religious reasons. 2. a person who leads an austerely simple life, especially one who abstains from the normal pleasures of life or denies himself or herself material satisfaction. Is it really accurate to say that Epicureans are ascetic?

<<<<"this doesn't mean that we can't partake in other pleasures, in fact we definitely should..." You say "in fact we definitely should" partake in other pleasures. Why, if the simplest life is the best? How should we choose between a life of 70 years on bread and water with no pain, versus a life of 30 years with some pain on the mountaintop full of vivid sensual and mental pleasures? How do we incorporate the statements: " And often we consider pains superior to pleasures when submission to the pains for a long time brings us as a consequence a greater pleasure" and "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 as you indicate, question 6 still needs more explanation, but that one is the most difficult without pretty extensive explanation of the letter to Menoeceus. Nevertheless, most internet discussion of Epicurus makes this question the focus of the philosophy....

Why I see this question as important: It seems to me that this question is sort of a variation of that quote from DeWitt where the Platonist said "What, in a word, is to be said of a philosophy that begins by regarding pleasure as the only positive good and ends by emptying pleasure of all positive content?"

The twist here is "What, in a word, is to be said of a philosophy that begins by regarding pleasure as the only positive good, but ends by seeking the minimal amount of pleasure that is available without any exertion?"

If some pleasures are greater than others, then surely some pleasures are worth many multiples of the pain they require, and given the shortness of life should we not be pursuing those pleasures with all the vigor we can put into it?

And that is what I see as the deeper implication of your question, Pivot. If no pleasure is any more pleasing than any other, then the shortness of life is irrelevant, and it makes no difference whether we derive our pleasures while living in a cave staring at a candle, or on the summit of a mountain taking all the awesome beauties Nature has to offer.