Posts by Hiram

This question was presented @ reddit and comes up from time to time. It might be a good exercise to discuss various ways to tackle this.

------

Q. Must humanists believe in the existence of objective moral values?

According to some definitions of humanism I have seen, humanists must believe in objective morality, i.e moral realism. Is this correct, to your mind? Or can a person be a humanist and not believe that objective moral values exist?

R. I can't speak for most humanists, I suspect there are various opinions out there, but:

1. I'm an Epicurean moral realist, and YET
2. I think people who search for an "objective" morality are chasing a ghost.

I don't think objectivity needs to be a feature of moral realism. The third Scholarch of the Epicurean School, Polystratus, argued that pleasure and aversion are emergent / relational properties of bodies, and that they are "objective" insofar as they are real and experienced as real, but they are not "objective" in the sense that they are subjective, personal experiences. I believe "objective" is an arbitrary, empty idealism, and that there's no reason whatsoever to suppose that the things that make life worth living have to obey the logic of having to be "objective".

Notice that Polystratus' pleasure-based morality is firmly rooted in the physics, and in the study of nature. Notice the language: "emergent properties of bodies", and he compares this to how a magnet attracts some metals but not others, or how some herbs cure some people but not others, or how peanuts give allergic reactions to some people but not others. These relational properties of matter are REAL, and obey natural processes. And he's saying that the complexities of pleasures and aversions in all our choices and avoidances, and in all our interactions both social and physical, obey similar principles.

There are no absolutes in nature, all things are relational. Absolutes are Platonic, imagined. Time is relative. Space is relative. Motion is relative, and so is gravity or the attraction and movements between the bodies. Why should it be any different in the realm of natural ethics?

So I would say NO, humanists "must" not (or are not obligated) to chase the ghost of "objective" morality (this is the great error we find in people like Sam Harris who have not studied Epicurean ethics), and yet this does not take away from having a fully scientific, useful, pragmatic morality.

Quote from Godfrey

To clarify a definition, is it correct that autarky refers specifically to economic self-sufficiency whereas autonomy is more general?

Autarchy IS (almost always translated as) self-sufficiency. Just as monarchy means rule of one, and oligarchy means rule of a few, autarchy is to rule oneself, personal sovereignty, which naturally implies self-sufficiency.

I'd word it: - Prudence, honor and justice are prerequisites for A LIFE OF pleasure.

RE:

- Autonomy is achieved by living frugally, only desiring what is natural and what can be maintained by a source of income which provides an excess of pleasure over pain.

That is the most common way to live in autarchy, but there's no need to shun wealth or other goods, merely a need to understand the limits that nature sets for our desires. In other words, (there's a Vatican saying that says) there's also a limit to simple living where it doesn't lead to a life of pleasure.

On practice, my book includes a chapter on elaborating your personal hedonic regimen. I rely mainly on modern research and suggest exercise, laughter therapy (also known as laughter yoga), meditational practices that are known to increase levels of oxytocin and serotonin (feel good chemicals that the brain secretes), foods (cooking, eating, as well as entertaining friends)--particularly foods that act as mood boosters like yerba maté, kava, chocolate, durian, etc. Also connect with the tradition of the laughing philosophers and enjoy good comedies, I particularly like Ricky Gervais and George Carlin as laughing philosophers because they're funny AND insightful.

Yes, after Siddhartha Buddha attained nirvana under the Bodhi tree, he touched the ground (a symbol of his vow to benefit innumerable sentient beings on Earth, rather than keep his insights to himself).

He then went to the Benares deer park, and there he started preaching his first enlightened sermon, which was on the four noble truths to his first disciples.

As for feeling / desires, yes the doctrine is more ascetic than EP and there's no hierarchy of desires (natural and necessary), instead it seems that all desire is dissatisfaction / dukkha.

The Four Noble Truths and eightfold path are universally known as the core of Buddhist teaching. You can quickly search them online or on youtube and learn more.

the end in B. is nirvana, which means "extinction" (of the fires of desire)

this is confused / and not the same as with sukkha (bliss, delight, pleasure), which is the opposite of dukkha (suffering, dissatisfaction, existential angst), which is the problem that Buddha was attempting to solve. Because sukkha is the opposite of dukkha, it's often thought of as "the end" (and in Nichiren Buddhism it is).

I also think it's fair for someone who wants to delve in the differences in doctrine to consider to what extent the upayas (= efficient means) of the Buddhists can serve Epicurean ends--because many of them do, and a blind dismissal of them comes off as insincere, impractical, fanatical and uninformed. Do we want pleasure or not, and do we consider it worthy of cultivation? If we do, we will study the means to it diligently and not dismiss the means because they are not the end.

It is clear that both in Epicurean philosophy, as well as in scientific studies, and in many other (secular or religious) wisdom traditions (like Buddhism, and also hygge, sumac kawsay, etc.), there are many upayas / efficient means that lead to a life of pleasure. The clear designation of these as "means" helps to not confuse the issue.

The only other instance of “mind’s eye” in philosophical or religious literature that I know of is the third eye in Hinduism, which is one of the chakras or energy centers in the body.

Many deities, like Kali and Shiva, and sometimes the Buddha, are depicted with their third eye open. He closest thing to a scientific theory of it is that the inner core of our brain is reptilian, and that because our earliest ancestors were cold blooded they needed to be in tune with the circadian rhythms, so this third eye helped to perceive the circadian rhythms. But the eyes are there for that, they see the light of the sun and report it to the brain...

So this idea is very pre-scientific and spurious...

I twot a tweet to Tom Church on this, will update when he replies

i Thought this link was dead but I see that the “Shakers and Movers” podcast guy still has his webpage.

Http://tomchurch.co.uk/hiram-crespo-on-the-pursuit-of-happiness-epicurean-philosophy-and-changing-your-mindset/

Elayne I don't know what city you're in, but feel free to post info on this meeting at the EP group (you can even create an event there for it), and let people know what city you're in. It's possible there are members of the EP group who are not far from you.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/EpicureanPhilosophy/events/

AND if I can be of any use re: sources or writings, let me know. I facilitated meetups some years back, but only got up to three people.

Quote from Godfrey

- Science needs to be studied only to the degree that it brings relief from fear.

On this point, PD 10-13 seem to say this but it does not mean or imply that any additional acquisition of scientific knowledge is BAD or useless. Science may have other advantages, or may be enjoyed for its own sake. We are not anti-science, which is how some people may interpret this out of ignorance or ill-will--on the contrary, the study of nature is an important source of pleasure to us.

Quote from godek

Which book(s) of Philodemus is this that has these writings?

This is what I found in his scroll on music (http://societyofepicurus.com/reasonings-on-philodemus-on-music/) (the part in gray is a direct quote from the scroll):

Quote

After summarizing Diogenes’ scroll, Philodemus argues that music (by which he means instrumental music, as he treats lyrics in a separate scroll on Poetry) is not capable of making us better or worse in character. This is one of his key points, and it’s because of the lack of words, of lyrics.

This view is consistent with the view that therapeutic philosophy heals with words, with arguments. Therefore, music can not replace philosophy in its healing role: it can not, by itself, fix the human character. It can only have therapeutic value if it incorporates the words of the healing doctrines of philosophy.

And those that say that we are sweetened by music because she softens our souls and would deprive them of their savagery, one may consider them perfect imbeciles. In fact, it is only reason–because she teaches that none of the strange things that unreason invents has been produced by nature and that, furthermore, nothing of what she produces has any importance–that can perfectly reach this result, once it has attained its perfection, and while she is still on the path to perfection, it can alleviate in proportion

The writings of Philodemus make it clear that only (well-reasoned, empirical) arguments can heal the soul. This is made clear, for example, when he discusses the healing properties of music and argues that only the content of the songs, if it contains the healing words (logos, related to logic) of philosophy, can heal.

And so Philodemus prescribes cognitive therapy to deal with emotions, thoughts, and beliefs that are misaligned with nature.

But outside of that, if there are medical or mental health issues, no one in the Epicurean group is licensed for therapy and professional advise should be sought. Philosophy only helps to keep basic existential health, not in cases that require special care.

I’ve thoroughly enjoyed your outline and could think of dozens of links to our content that would reinforce many of the conclusions of your wisdom tradition, from the importance of concentric social circles to martyrdom and anger (Philodemus’ scroll)

Todos disponibles aquí:

https://sociedadepicuro.wordpress.com/2018/11/08/__trashed-6/

https://theautarkist.wordpress.com/2018/11/20/happy-twentieth-2/

According to Philodemus, no.

PD 10-13

Make that which is before you better than that which is behind you.

A brief thematic study guide for the benefit of beginners:

http://societyofepicurus.com/vatican-sayings-brief-study-guide/