Posts by Elayne

Yes, I am not expecting everyone to agree with everything I am saying. I do want to say, though, that I don't view personal and philosophy issues as separate, because this philosophy include feelings. It applies to all parts of life, and in fact saying it applies to specific interpersonal disputes is part of what makes it different from other philosophies. That is why I don't think people need to shy away from having feelings about these recent discussions. The feelings involved are real.

If nothing else, readers can see how difficult it is to publicly endorse a philosophy of pleasure tied solely to material reality. You will be met with all kinds of opposition, and Epicurus was too. I have my pleasure reward in having finally met others who enjoy practicing pleasure as I do, and it was necessary to take risks to find them. I hope I have set at least some example of standing firm against idealism and that some of you will benefit, and that gives me pleasure.

I will add that my personal experience of the harm done by a non-harming ideal and trying to love everyone just based on their being a human is what helps me spot this. I wasn't raised religious but still unwittingly absorbed this bit of idealism from the culture. Humanism is rife with it. By refraining from causing harm and trying to love unconditionally, I stayed in a very painful life circumstance for a long, long time. If I had been advised by friends that I might need to cause harm, including emotional or financial, to get out, and that unconditional love is ridiculous, it would have been very helpful to my happiness!

I am not sure if others here will recognize how closely such generic non-harming advice ties into advice for people to stay in abusive relationships. One tool used by aggressors is to say things like "if you leave me, I will die", etc. The person doesn't want to cause harm because they've absorbed that it's wrong, so they stay on.

On a non-human level, without our immune systems constantly deciding which microbial invaders to kill and which to get along with, we wouldn't be able to exist as a species. Our bodies are constantly harming or getting along, depending on specifics.

Sometimes the wise thing is to cause harm.

Oscar, I don't generically try to minimize harm. I have a strong degree of empathy, such that I cover my eyes in violent movie scenes because I find it painful. I have a pain in my corresponding body part when I witness another person being injured.

But it's completely contextual. If someone tried to hurt one of my kids, and my only route of defense was to harm the aggressor, I'd do that in a flash. I wouldn't even stop to think. The total result of my action would be the pleasure of saving my child from harm, and the pleasure isn't based on reason but on direct, spontaneous interaction with reality.

It's unlikely I would use premeditated pain more than essential for defense, but that's only bc of how I am "wired".

If someone got pleasure from hurting others, which happens, it's natural for the targets of harm to join forces against the aggressor to restrain them in some way. In that case, if the aggressive person could think through the results of action, they could decide if it was wiser for their pleasure to aggress or to refrain and get pleasure another way. It might not always come out in favor of nonaggression. This, I think, is why Epicurus said laws are for the protection of the wise.

The Christian version is in loving everyone, even your enemies, turning the other cheek, forgiving indefinitely, and leaving judgment/ consequences to a supernatural idea. Of course it doesn't get carried out much in practice, and thank goodness for that, because biologically speaking we will likely always have intra-species predators, and if we want to enjoy life, it's wise to treat them differently.

Yay, I love this thread! I have a feeling there are more Epicureans who never heard of Epicurus than among those who have. Thanks for starting this section.

Any action at all, including thinking and feeling, requires the consumption of ATP, energy, and takes some level of effort, which can be pleasurable or not. You give the example of singing as effortless-- as a soprano who sings in public performances, I promise there's effort even in singing alone in the shower. It takes muscle. But I enjoy it immensely.

Purely effortless pleasure is impossible. Painless pleasure, on the other hand, is possible, and I know because I've had it.

I think Epicurus would argue with Philodemus, and if not, I'll argue against them both.

Hiram, here is an example where I think Philodemus shows some idealism. What on earth is "noble", unless it is tied to ability to get pleasure? His assertion that not harming others, generically, is something we should do because the gods did it makes zero sense. The gods as described were not at risk of harm from humans, so harming us would not cause them pleasure. If we were to threaten their pleasure, they would be wise to stop us even if the only way was to harm us.

Notice that Epicurus spoke of the "wise man" -- the man who has learned to get pleasure. In reality, this would require taking different actions in different conditions and subordinating nothing to pleasure. The wise person believes pure pleasure is experienced somewhere in the universe by material beings, and that such beings would not engage in human affairs because of their specific situation, and this reduces anxiety and provides hope for our own success at pleasure.

This bit of Philodemus sounds Christian in its level of idealizing non-harming. If Epicurus had written like that, I wouldn't be an Epicurean.

Epicurus had the most useful words IMO-- that if failing to achieve a desire won't cause pain, and if you can't get whatever it is or can't get it without more pain than pleasure, it's easy to let go of that desire once you understand it. Giving specific lists is just a way to provide examples of what would cause pain or not if unsatisfied for _most_ people, but the map is not the territory. The observation of typical experience does not replace the peculiarities of individual experience. I think Epicurus understood this clearly.

I'm happy to be called a "reality fundamentalist", and I will only agree with anyone's philosophy to the extent they can demonstrate their position to me, based on perceptions--senses, feelings, and innate intuitions (pattern recognitions).

Because our personal philosophies are strikingly different, I do not feel myself to be under the same tent with you, so far, any more than I am in Plato's tent. So it doesn't bother me that people would see us not considering ourselves to be in the same philosophy at all-- that's just accurate. The confusing part is calling it all EP.

This debate is bringing me to the point where I no longer want to discuss what Epicurus did or didn't mean unless it is also made clear whether my discussion partner is testing all philosophy against their own perceptions of reality and whether we have reached the same conclusions about the nature of reality. Then we can explore whether Epicurus got something right or not. We can test his words against the evidence of reality together. Anything else feels like a waste of time.

Hiram, I can understand your assertion that what you are saying is Epicurean, if it turns out Epicurus was not a realist after all, or if you are defining that as being what people who have called themselves Epicureans have said.

If neither one of us had ever read Epicurus, though, our baseline philosophies are different.

When you say "perfect person", what do you mean? What standard are you using? If it is not subjective pleasure, then it has to be something else, and what is that, for you? Based on your other writing, I assumed it was tied to some unfailing demonstration of a golden rule of some kind, which is idealist, assuming everyone agrees on how they want to be treated, rather than based on subjective experience.

But perhaps I have put words in your mouth. Can you tell me what you mean by perfect person without referring to any ideas you can't show me with perceptual examples? How do you define that?

Hiram, I will argue from reality, since we differ on how and whether Epicurus and others understood reality.

We can only have direct perceptions subjectively, as individuals. Then if we want to communicate our perceptions, we have to use a conceptual method, such as language, or try to _evoke_ those sensations in others, such as through art or by giving a person a cookie from the batch we just enjoyed.

If we use words that are not describing a perceptual reality, our communications become nonsensical and full of contradiction and paradox.

The words can't ever replace the perceptual reality, and thus one can endlessly deconstruct even the word "cookie" if one is determined to do so-- but one can't endlessly deconstruct the cookie itself, and if sugar is deconstructed into indivisible particles, it will have no taste. It's only as sugar molecules that it tastes sweet (yes, I know there are different sugars). So "sweet" and "cookie" describe a real perception but don't replace it.

Those kinds of words, where a person can provide a perceptual example, are different from words which include abstraction not demonstrable in perceptions. Words like "wellbeing" or "flourishing" include idealisms which will not be universally agreed on-- ideas which can't be demonstrated perceptually. Those words require other words to define them, whereas words based on perceptual reality can be shown to others, not just talked about.

I already had observed this, and I had read Wittgenstein, etc, about semantics, so when I read Epicurus' advice on clear communication, I recognized that he had figured this out. That he was saying not to argue about concepts/words that didn't have a direct perceptual reality behind them. That to quibble over the definition of sweet was just perverse, since we can all sit in a circle, pass around a bowl of sugar cubes, and observe on others' faces the same expressions we make when tasting the sugar. If we all then point at the bowl and use the words sugar and sweet, we've agreed on a shorthand to communicate our individual perceptions of the same object.

I was pleased to read those words of his-- it went towards me deciding he was a credible person.

Hiram, Epicurus described subjective pleasure as the only way of knowing what is good, which means "advantage" can only be understood as meaning something that increases pleasure. No one would be confused reading his words in that full context. A condition can't be a benefit other than through pleasure, because there's no other measure of benefit.

For most of us, things like having nontoxic air and water increase pleasure more than causing pain, but it is against reality to say this could be absolute or universal, or that deciding to use hedonic calculus will in every case make people agree on specific environmental policies/goals or even find it wise to participate in politics or activism. That's idealism. We are not neurologically the same.

It's certainly reality-based to observe that combining efforts with those who agree on a policy is a way to increase one's pleasure, and I have done a lot of that. And it's reality to observe that within the same species, there is often a lot of overlap in what causes pleasure. But none of that overrides the direct feelings of pleasure for a specific individual.

Hiram, I have no standard for "perfect people" or "perfect Epicureans" other than the degree to which people achieve pleasure. A perfect person would be exactly as Epicurus described his gods, beings experiencing continuous total pleasure without pain. So in that regard, I haven't met anyone who got that far, including myself, but I can say I have learned by experience how to enjoy my life more and more. And that for me it requires total rejection of idealism in favor of reality testing.

I also don't know what it means to have a right to have flaws. The only flaw I know of would be some kind of habit or characteristic reducing one's own pleasure, and I don't know why anyone would want a right to less pleasure. However, observation of biological reality does tell me, as I've said above, that we do get in our own way sometimes.

Your choice of that framing tells me you have a very different perspective from mine-- some other kind of way to define perfect or flaws. You asked for examples of idealism, and what you just said is one!

As far as friendship goes, I can't make decisions ahead of seeing behavior. I accept your apology, and I would need to see repeated, prolonged evidence of friendliness before I could make that kind of decision. More evidence than from a stranger who had not been unkind.

However, as long as you think in an idealist way and are actively promoting this as a way to view reality, that is going to be unpleasant to me. It wouldn't be a basis for friendship, because it would cause me pain and not mutual benefit of pleasure. I will feel obligated, for the benefit of my friends, to say that you are wrong and that I hope people don't listen to you.

If you changed your way of thinking such that you adopted a realist philosophy, even if you decided Epicurus wasn't a realist and therefore rejected him, it would be easy to be your friend, because our disagreement would only be about what Epicurus meant, rather than about truth itself.

Certainly I do not expect any friend to be a source of pure pleasure and no pain in my life, if that is what you meant by a perfect person. If someone is my friend, I have a strong feeling of love and loyalty to them which overrides many pains they cause me unintentionally, and even sometimes intentionally if they are sincerely sorry and make amends. A betrayal would need to be repeated and/or severe before it would break my love. Friendship is a deep bond of feeling. I don't enter into it lightly, because of that. To say you are my friend means that you love me so much that if I am in need of your help, you would drop everything and come to my aid, and I for you. And that we trust each other not to make those requests excessively, so as to cause each other pain. It can start from a less complete bond, but a mature friendship means the friend's pleasure and pain is entangled deeply with your own.

By that definition, which is described by Epicurus but which I developed by my own experience with beloved friends, you and I are not friends. But I will agree to leave that possibility open, depending on how you treat me and those whose pleasure is entangled in mine from here forward.

Godfrey, I couldn't recall who came up with that term, so I had to look it up. Cassius will be excited to find out Nietzsche was involved! I think it's very useful-- and the wild thing is that you could put anything you wanted in that gap. You could say everything we don't know is explained by witches, magical unicorns, Zeus, universal consciousness, or an as yet undiscovered type of herb. So you can have one gap person debating another gap person-- "the gap is filled by leprechauns"-- "no, it's by elves"-- and nobody can base an argument on any kind of data.

It has also meant that their gods have gotten squeezed into an ever smaller space. If they want their gods, that seems like a strategic error, lol.

Oscar, that's a cool video-- I remember my dad teaching me that when I was in 4th grade, but I hadn't thought of it in relationship to this issue of indivisibility. Nice!

It's also a great example of how using our senses, including through their extensions of instruments, gives us primary evidence about reality that is not found in abstract theories. Abstraction is helpful, definitely, but it can't give us accurate information unless real evidence is used. Planck was wise to start from the evidence!

I have read several books by Stenger-- I enjoyed them all. But I haven't read that one, Godfrey, and I'm looking forward to hearing about it.

My intuition about indivisibility is that without it, it might be easier to propose a "god of the gaps"-- a supernatural force whose effects are hiding out in the unmapped territory. If matter were infinitely divisible, we could never describe the behavior of any particle without considering the possible influences of unknown sub-particles, which we could never be finished dividing. It would feed straight into Skepticism, wouldn't it? Intrinsic unknowability of nature?

But Idk if I'm right about that. Someone who is better at physics might give a different answer.

Love it, Oscar! The weeds of magical/idealistic thinking are hard for people to get off their feet. I would love to find a way to do that-- to free people from getting stuck in them.

Hiram, I preferred not to go into a bickering level of detail, mostly bc it seems pointless. Elli and I have long ago developed a friendship. Our initial difficulties resulted from a misunderstanding-- she thought I was a humanist/idealistic, and I was offended at someone thinking that about me, because it is the opposite of who I am. After I saw how much trouble the FB site had from people pushing other philosophies on there, I totally understood what happened. Elli turns out to be one of the warmest and kindest people I have met.

The reason I express admiration and agreement with Cassius and Elli is that I am joyful at finally finding people who understand life the way I do. It is not for flattery-- it is deep appreciation, and relief that I am not alone. Epicurus talked about the importance of finding like-minded friends to study philosophy and share life with.

I actually had already been using the Canon to assess reality before I read it, although mine was less organized. It is how I evaluated Epicurus' words for truth-- it is how I evaluate Philodemus or anyone else. I think what you, Hiram, are not understanding is that I am testing what anyone says, living or dead, by the Canon. So I don't care who it is that says a thing or how long they've done it for-- if it doesn't line up with reality, it won't fly for me.

I was startled to find a philosopher I agreed with, on almost everything. I would have just called it my own philosophy, because it is, but that would be plagiarism since he said it first.

I consider myself a fundamentalist only in regards to reality. Epicurus shared my perspective on that. If someone else doesn't, then _that_ is why I disagree, not because of some weird cult thing.

You don't know how you would interact with me if I don't follow Philodemus' rules? If you don't know how it is you've been rude to me-- primarily condescending-- I don't think a rule will help fix that. I prefer the spontaneous kindness of friends, who do not need rules to want each other to be happy. Even while following rules, people can be very unkind if they lack the underlying feeling. I see Epicurus' words on friendship more as descriptive-- this is what it's like to be friends-- not a fixed set of rules.

Like Epicurus, I am not overly quick to assess a relationship as a friendship.

Also, Hiram, I am uncertain about Philodemus' accuracy in representing Epicurus. You lean heavily on him. I decided to become an Epicurean because he was the only philosopher I'd ever read whom I agreed with. I tested Epicurus' words against my knowledge of the world and found him valid, which is a different process from learning the ideas from scratch. I approve of him because he was right, rather than having learned what was correct from him.

I do not find that all of Philodemus' writings are as accurate about reality as Epicurus was. I'm not 100% convinced Philodemus understood things accurately, and I don't mind questioning the value of his advice.

maybe Bruce Schumm's Deep Down Things about particle physics? My dad is a particle physicist, so I have heard him talk about it all my life. He still gives me lectures on magnetic fields when I visit him.