Posts by Mako

I apologize for another regular absence, especially when there was such great discussion going on here. What's been said so far suggests to me that I need to reexamine my understanding of Epicurean truth. Sound understanding is proving to be most elusive to me.

Quote from Hiram

What our tradition teaches is that pleasure and aversion are true experiences, but they are true in a way which is different from how the things reported by our five senses are true. Within the canon, each set of faculties has its own jurisdiction over one function. Only EYES can see, only EARS can hear, and only PLEASURE-AVERSION can report what is pleasant or not. So each has jurisdiction over one aspect of reality.

I can see now how truth from the senses versus truth regarding pleasurable should not be confused, although this has now left me somewhat confused. How can pleasure-aversion confirm to you what is truthfully pleasurable without using the truth that is provided by the senses? Is my misunderstanding originating from the wording, or am I confusing how the input of sensual truth plays in to forming truth regarding pleasure, which is now starting to seem like personal preference rather than truth.

Forgive my extremely simplistic and potentially biased example, I am not well versed in philosophical exchange (or I'm simply failing to see the big picture): I enjoy looking at some categories/forms of art. My eyes perceive two pieces, one I enjoy looking at and one I do not enjoy as much. My sense of vision confirms for me that there are two pieces of art that are wholly separate from one another. Past experience/knowledge of looking at these two forms of art identifies that one belongs to one category, and the other to another category (woodwork versus ceramic pottery, for example). Similarly, experience of what is personally pleasurable to me allows me to immediately identify which one I like, even though these pieces are individuals out of a group. I could not have formed any of this experience without the observational truth provided from my eyes over separate experiences of looking at them. Therefore, I could not have formed the truth that I find greater pleasure in one form of art without the truth that is provided from my observational senses. That is, unless sensual truth only goes so far as to confirm that there are two pieces of art in front of me, and truth from pleasure-aversion tells me I prefer one of them over the other - and that's it.

I welcome and greatly appreciate anyone with the inclination to dissect this example and point out which, if any, parts of my reasoning are in line with how I should be holding truth from the senses and truth from pleasure-aversion together. A somewhat revised outline follows:

1. Nature / Physics
   
   1. All matter is composed of bodies, which travel within the void.
   2. The senses receive matter and allow the body to perceive it.
   3. Nothing can be created from nothing, and similarly, nothing may be rendered to nothing.
   4. (*)
2. Knowledge /Truth
   1. Nature allows us to perceive truth from the senses. The senses observe and confirm what is and is not true.
   2. For those things that the senses cannot confirm, reasoning rooted in experience and evidence of what is known to be true is applied. This is the process for reasoning on things that are imperceptible or unknown, though "truth" that is the solely the product of reasoning should not be considered absolute.
   3. The experience of the senses, which identifies what is pleasurable and what is painful, suggests to us what is to be pursued and avoided. Nature confirms that this is the impetus for choice and avoidance since other life, unable to reason beyond sensations of pleasure and pain, acts solely based on experience. (**)
   4. Nature provides that the ultimate goal of life is to live pleasurably. This is proven by the reasoning above, that life unable to reason chooses pleasure over pain.
   5. Reasoning should be in line with the ultimate goal of life, and should use the senses and observations as its criteria for determining what is painful and pleasurable determining what things to choose and avoid.
   6. There are limits imposed by Nature, such as mortality and the limits of pleasure. We must not attempt to overcome these limits.
   7. It is the nature of life that we experience inherent pain by need, such as need of food and water.
3. Ethics / How to live
   1. The highest state of pleasure is when all pain, be it need or desire, is removed. After this, we experience no greater pleasure.
   2. All choice and avoidance should be made to achieve and maintain a pleasurable life, free of pain. We should act to avoid pain and fear firstly.
   3. To obtain the highest state of mental pleasure, you must reflect on pleasure, pain, your choices and observations in regards to the ultimate goal of life, the limits of life, and what can be confirmed as true.
   4. You must enjoy your present blessings while recalling happiness past, without worrying for the future, which is uncertain. However, you must actively choose to make your future happier than your present.
   5. Pleasure should always be chosen for pleasure's sake, but simplicity should only be chosen if it begets pleasure. In the same way, we must accustom ourselves to simplicity so that we are happy when we have little, and enjoy luxury all the more.
   6. The wise man will live pleasantly, well and justly only if each of these virtues are present simultaneously.
   7. Friendship will secure lasting happiness, but the wise man may protect himself from men and the prison of ignorance by living quietly and withdrawn from the public.
   8. Good, evil and justice are subjective constructs. Nature truly defines what is good and evil as what is pleasurable and painful, respectively. Justice is a contract not to cause pain to one another.

(*) I am inclined to assume the idealistic view on the gods. Without confusing the rest of my early foundation, it is much simpler for me to comprehend the gods as such in this early stage of studies, but I hope to review all viewpoints later.

(**) Does "instinct" appear anywhere in Epicurus' discussion? The entire principle that animals choose/avoid based on pleasure/pain is key to how we apply it, but is it ever suggested that they are given an imprint or suggestion of this to start with? For example, aposematism or "warning coloring" on certain predators gives immediate, inherently-provided feedback to potential predators to stay away from another organism, thus allowing both organisms to avoid harm.

Cassius, thank you very much for your input! It is reassuring to hear that I am starting off on the right foot. I will save the article for reading this weekend and do some research on the other source you mentioned.

Your vision of pleasure and the vessel makes great sense to me. If I am recalling rightly, Epicurus did say that the things that shape each of our happy lives are the things we reason bring us pleasure when we are sober and not troubled. In fact, your Full Cup model resonates even more with this thought. Nature has made pleasure simple by giving a "fluid" nature. Pleasure may vary in its shape and form, but fits in the vessel just the same.

The justice topic is one of the things that I am hesitant to mention to my peers who ask about Epicureanism, especially given that in some it immediately summons to mind some of the controversial and horrible images that you mentioned. I've been called "uncaring" and "ignorant" because I choose not to join the chorus of voices damning a particular atrocity, even when it occurs outside my realm of life.
We are to become more self-reliant and secure protection from others, knowing that our true friends will support us if we need it - therefore, why should I take a stance on a matter that cannot impact my life if it will only make me enemies and pain from having to defend a position? It is much easier, and in my opinion in line with Nature's true justice, to concern myself with what can harm me, determine if I can avoid it/make a contract with it, and entirely remove the possibility of fear from uncertainty. The "dark side" of this might be a sort of Epicurean vigilantism, especially if the philosophy were less altruistically hedonistic and more self-centered. A scary thought!

Hello all. I'd like to thank Cassius and the community for supporting the outline concept. I think this will be a very useful tool as I continue my early studies in Epicureanism. I anticipate that my personal outline will initially focus more on Knowledge, Truth and How to live, though I may be grossly neglecting other areas of study that would benefit and support the position of happy wisdom I am trying to reach. Right now, I am still trying to understand the foundations of the philosophy and discover how to keep it fresh in my mind in every day life, living by the doctrines that have brought me happiness when I study them.

I am very busy, as we all are, and sadly tend to fall behind on my studies during periods of stress. This has been what's kept me from keeping the philosophy several times in the past. I am trying to remain encouraged and organized in my attempts now, and having the support and knowledge of an Epicurean community is likely what has kept me successful this go around. If I had one goal initial goal for my outline, it would be to construct it so that I can keep the early, basic foundations of Nature, Truth and Ethics fresh in my mind every single day regardless of how busy life may be at the time, and live in accordance with the key principles even when the time I would prefer to spend deepening my studies is consumed. Any input, suggestions and advice (even if not related to the outline) are wholly welcome and appreciated as I continue not only to continue my studies, but retain what I've learned.

I will initially only start with what I believe I can recall from texts from memory. If I am greatly misinterpreting any principles (beyond the realm of personal interpretation), guidance that will bring my outline closer to the truth is entirely welcome.

Please, do not let any blank spaces or areas "under construction" keep you from offering your input.

1. Nature / Physics (*)
   
   1. All matter is composed of bodies, which travel within the void.
   2. The senses receive matter and allow the body to perceive it.
   3. Nothing can be created from nothing, and similarly, nothing may be rendered to nothing.
   4. The gods are immortal beings that are imperceptible to us. (**)
2. Knowledge /Truth
   1. Nature derives truth from the senses. What the senses tell us is pleasurable and painful is true, as Nature confirms this in life that is unable to reason beyond sensations of pleasure and pain. Therefore, Nature defines the goal of life as living a pleasurable life.
   2. Reasoning should be in line with the ultimate goal of life, and should use the senses and observations as its criteria for determining what is painful and pleasurable, and therefore what is true.
   3. Choice and avoidance, as well as reasoning on things which may not be observed by the senses, should be based on the reasoning mentioned above. Experience and evidence must be applied to those things of which one is unsure.
   4. There are limits imposed by Nature, such as mortality and the limits of pleasure. We must not attempt to overcome these limits.
   5. It is the nature of life that we experience inherent pain by need, such as need of food and water.
3. Ethics / How to live
   1. The highest state of pleasure is when all pain, be it need or desire, is removed. After this, we experience no greater pleasure. (***)
   2. All choice and avoidance should be made to achieve and maintain a pleasurable life, free of pain. We should act to avoid pain and fear firstly. (***)
   3. To obtain the highest state of mental pleasure, you must reflect on pleasure, pain, your choices and observations in regards to the ultimate goal of life, the limits of life, and what can be confirmed as true.
   4. You must enjoy your present blessings while recalling happiness past, without worrying for the future, which is uncertain. However, you must actively choose to make your future happier than your present.
   5. Pleasure should always be chosen for pleasure's sake, but simplicity should only be chosen if it begets pleasure. In the same way, we must accustom ourselves to simplicity so that we are happy when we have little, and enjoy luxury all the more.
   6. The wise man will live pleasantly, well and justly only if each of these virtues are present simultaneously.
   7. Friendship will secure lasting happiness, but the wise man may protect himself from men and the prison of ignorance by living quietly and withdrawn from the public.
   8. Good, evil and justice are subjective constructs. Nature truly defines what is good and evil as what is pleasurable and painful, respectively. Justice is a contract not to cause pain to one another.

(*) It appears I need to study my Elementals more closely.

(**) My confusion shows here. Epicurus denied the existence of a God, but I thought I recall him also saying they exist, but are not as man believes them to be. They immortal and happy, the model that we seek to follow by living a pleasurable life. Was Epicurus using the word "God" to demonstrate this, but not actually claiming there were heavenly figures above us?

(***) After the initial draft, I can say that my understanding of removing pain to obtain the highest pleasure may be lacking. This is where I am careful not to approach the Stoic mindset again by seeking first to remove all pain and desire by simple means. The Full Cup model has helped with this, but I seem to still be a little unsure as to how to think of it.

A little late to the party, but I can support Cassius' confidence in DeWitt's book. In the past, I've picked up and "fell off" the Epicurean wagon several times due to confusion over texts and the business of life. Several months ago I began my first truly successful studies, and I am still challenged to continue learning and applying the texts every day. Cassius may recall pointing out to me the Stoic infiltration into many modern interpretations of Epicurean texts. I had fallen unknowingly into their intended asceticism, and to me Epicurean happiness seemed bleak, until my thinking was corrected. DeWitt makes clear this misinterpretation and meddling in Epicurus' teachings, and suddenly, everything I had been misguided on was clear.

I am not sure if others have access to this sort of system, but the academy which I attend has a subscription to "eBooks Central". There are many reference text websites which universities pay for subscriptions to for their students, and I'm allowed to view a protected copy of the text for 180 days from the date I "selected it" for reading. I would encourage anyone who thinks they may be able to freely access the text through a similar system to follow up with their library department or representative about online access/ordering of this specific text.

I regret that the "needful employments of life" have again begun to consume what feels like every minute of the day. Even so, trying to retain what I've learned in my own studies and from each of you keeps the prison of public education a little less gloomy. I daresay it's all that keeps me sane sometimes!

It excites me to see the activity and interest in keeping the philosophy alive by expanding to more free platforms. Facebook is especially frustrating, especially when checking my account for the first time after a long day, seeing all the activity I missed and then having it disappear into the data void when I do have the time to catch up.

I'd like to help and support this growth however I can while continuing my still-early studies. I'll spend time catching up on all the new platforms and trying to remain as connected as possible while doing what I can to assist in developing the community. Even if I don't show for a time, know I very sincerely appreciate all of your efforts and discussion, and would very much like to see the community grow!

Thank you for those recommendations Eric, I'm very excited to see the platform spread to rapidly.

I support having an Epicurean presence on free speech websites and expanding the presence in general. Finding the Epicurean Philosophy page on a platform as large as Facebook was encouraging, but to then be handed a multitude of external resources to help in my early studies was very impactful. At the end of the day Facebook is primarily a marketing tool and, as with hundreds of other social media and sharing platforms experiencing similar divides, if content does not fit the ephemeral mold set by whoever owns it, it is liable to get pushed far into obscurity. This should hardly effect Epicurean efforts as long as there is a presence on burgeoning platforms like EricR has provided, and I definitely think it will serve to introduce more people to the philosophy. Great work everyone, and thank you!