Posts by Godfrey

This probably belongs under "posts by Captain Obvious", but I was just thinking about PD03 and it occurred to me that that particular PD is, among other things, an instruction for removing pain. The reading that absence of pain leads to pleasure has the doctrine backwards. (One might credit Cicero with having a hand in this....)

PD03: The limit of enjoyment is the removal of all pains. Wherever and for however long pleasure is present, there is neither bodily pain nor mental distress. St-Andre translation

Reading the second sentence in the most straightforward way says that if you're experiencing pleasure then you're not experiencing pain. It doesn't say that the way to obtain pleasure is to remove all pain, although that's a logical implication of what is said. It's not a Buddhist idea either; it's more of a refutation of the idea that you relieve suffering by removing desire.

If one is attempting to remove a particular pain, following Epicurus' advice here may lead to a series of realizations on the nature of pleasure. One might start with a very fleeting pleasure, discover that eventually that dissipates or leads to further pain (I've sometimes referred to this as papering over pain with pleasure). Continuing to pursue pleasure in the attempt to remove particular pains eventually leads to a deeper understanding of pleasure and its optimal role in one's life. This has nothing to do with pursuing the absence of pain in order to obtain pleasure, in fact it's the exact opposite approach.

There's a paper on Academia titled 'Aristotle and the Uses of Contemplation' (M.D. Walker, CUP 2018), by Tom Angier. It's a review of Walker's book of that title. It mentioned something new to me (me being basically ignorant about Aristotle), which is that Aristotle's highest good of contemplation was theological.

Although not mentioned, this got me thinking that Epicurus' insistence that the gods are real likely was some kind of response to Aristotle. Since Aristotle placed (theological?) contemplation quite highly, Epicurus was making a point about the importance of contemplating the true nature of the gods and of the importance of pleasure.

Here are some quotes I have from trying to get a handle on epibloai. I'm not sure if they're helpful, and I don't have any conclusions to offer at the moment. This is quite a juicy topic: one perfect for Cicero to turn into an obfuscated mess.

Lucretius 4.793-817 (Long and Sedley translation 1987):

No doubt the images are steeped in technique, and have taken lessons in wandering to enable them to have fun at nighttime! (8) Or will this be nearer the truth? Because within a single period of time detectable by our senses – the time it takes to utter a single sound – there lie hidden many periods of time whose existence is discovered by reason, it follows that everywhere at every time every image is ready on the spot: so great is the speed and availability of things. And because they are delicate the mind can only see sharply those of them which it strains to see. Hence the remainder all perish, beyond those for which the mind has prepared itself. The mind further prepares itself by hoping to see the sequel to each thing, with the result that this comes about. Don’t you see how the eyes too, when they begin to see things which are delicate, strain and prepare themselves, and that there is no other way of seeing sharply? As a matter of fact, even with things plain to see you can discover that the result of failing to pay attention is that it becomes like something separated from you by the whole of time and far away. Why then is it surprising if the mind loses everything else beyond the matters to which it is devoting itself?

Letter to Herodotus 50-52 (Mensch translation 2018)

And whatever image we derive by focusing the mind or the sense organs, whether on the object’s shape or its concomitant properties, this shape is the shape of the solid object and is due either to the continuous compacting or to the residue of the image. Falsehood and error always reside in the added opinion [when a fact is awaiting confirmation or the absence of contradiction, which fact is subsequently not confirmed by virtue of an immovable opinion in ourselves that is linked to the imaginative impression, but distinct from it; it is this that gives rise to the falsehood]. For impressions like those received from a picture, or arising in dreams, or from any other form of apprehension by the mind, or by the other criteria, would not have resembled what we call the real and true things had it not been for certain actual things on which we had cast our eyes. Error would not have occurred unless we had experienced some other movement in ourselves that was linked to, but distinct from, the apprehension of the impression; and from this movement, if it is not confirmed or is contradicted, falsehood results; whereas if it is confirmed, or not contradicted, truth results. And to this view we must adhere, lest the criteria based on clear evidence be repudiated, or error, strengthened in the same way, throw all these things into confusion.

From "Epicurean Prolepsis" by David Glidden (1985):

What is puzzling is that in his discussion of Epicurean theology Cicero seems to conflate the Epicurean apprehension of the gods through epibolé tés dianoias with the apprehension of their nature through prolepsis.

Unfortunately, Velleius goes on to describe this process of apprehension in some detail, and the description he comes up with turns out to be exactly what we know to be Epicurus’ sixth sense, where the mind itself acts as a sense organ: namely, epibolé tés dianoias.

On the one hand, the process of imprinting guarantees that the kinds of things there are make their impact on the mind, a causal defense of realism and the testimony of aisthésis. This mechanical process enforces our ability to see things the way they are. To make this defence impregnable the Epicureans went on to insist that any thing we can imagine owes its character to a real existence - namely, the shape of some atomic construct striking the mind. To imagine a god or a flying horse or even to see that the gods are blessed and eternal is simply to be exposed to the requisite atomic patterns and in time to come to recognize them. According to Epicurus, it is some such process as automatic as this which makes perception possible and gives it its authority. And the dream figures the mind perceives are of a piece with perception generally, leaving, so to speak, no room for imagination: that is, nothing for the mind to make up on its own or at least no right for the mind to call such inventions aisthéseis, when for the Epicureans such cognitive impressions can be nothing more than judgments or opinions which must be tested against the vocabulary of experience, the way things look. Given the connection between epibolé tés dianoia and prolepsis, the mind is also said to be able to pick out figures by their sortal nature, to perceive the general character of things. This is all said to be part of the same process and prolepsis is said to enjoy the same sort of epistemic authority as aisthéseis in general.

Quote from Don

I truly dislike Cicero

This makes me smile 😊

Quote

For many if not most modern American Christians, their beliefs about the Christian god are in fact one of their greatest sources of comfort and not distress (burninglights)

Ditto for an afterlife: there are people, not limited to Christians, who take great comfort in their belief in an afterlife.

It seems most productive to me to find a way to attract people who would tend to be interested in the first place. I don't really think that a devout Christian or idealist will ever find EP attractive unless they get disillusioned with their current situation and are looking for alternatives. So I see the obstacles to revival in large part as obstacles to finding like minded folks.

Yikes!

I enjoyed her book and have been following her blog for a couple of years now. Highly recommended! I've posted here once or twice on her work; a search should turn up the posts.

Her take on things often seems to be Epicurean. I don't know that it is, but it is science based. Which, come to think of it, is Epicurean.

I've thought that"eminent and powerful" was the translation of this one, but that doesn't seem to be the case! I've been confusing it with PD06, but this seems to be making a slightly different point. This one being about fame and esteem as opposed to political power in PD06.

Eikadistes this is great! Are you planning to upload it as a pdf? Personally, I've never wrapped my head around D of O and this would be really helpful in that regard.

I'm flummoxed. There seem to be two basic versions:

1) anything (that provides safety/confidence/freedom from fear...) is a natural good

2) kingship and politics (if they provide safety/confidence/freedom from fear) are natural goods

Personally, I prefer the second version as the first opens the door to all sorts of nefarious and misguided behavior whereas the second is fairly specific. But I'm unclear as to whether the Greek might support one or the other of these versions.

I was hoping to make it, but won't be able to.

Bottoms up!

Not sure if this helps, but...

PD22 “But as to the ultimate aim, we ought to consider it with all the clearness and evidence which we refer to whatever we think and believe; otherwise, all things will be full of confusion and uncertainty of judgment.” Yonge (1853)

Quote from Don

But more importantly...

Quote

Quote For me, these thoughts completely relativize everything I do. And they make me appreciate the good things I have and the life that I lead, life itself, so precious to me. They don’t make me despair or turn nihilist. They make me love existence and want to do more to help others love it.

This is so interesting to me, and I totally agree with the sentiment.

Recently I had a relaxed, wide-ranging conversation with a neighborhood acquaintance and we got onto the topic of philosophy. I mentioned how the idea that we experience nothing after our death gives me great comfort. He responded, while noticeably tensing up, that an afterlife was "a line in the sand" for him: he couldn't consider any philosophy as legitimate that didn't include an afterlife. Unfortunately the conversation moved on and I never got back to follow up on this idea.

He and I both retired about the same time, and both got into thinking about "the big issues" at that time. He began a deep dive into his background of secular Judaism, which certainly influences his view on the subject. We both have visceral reactions to death, yet in such different ways.

Ping pong and darts were mentioned in the previous thread, both of which are excellent for promoting friendship. Great, simple, fun ways to gather.

More active sports are good as well. Decades ago I played volleyball a couple of times a week, often socializing after the games.

Any activity or interest that you enjoy can work as well: music, reading groups, knitting....

All of these activities can provide pleasure and friendship. Not all of them will provide friendships with like minded Epicureans, but they're a start....

That IS a slippery word! Maybe "buxom" would be a better translation

This word is a good illustration of the woes of translating.

The words that evoke a negative response in my mind are:

- "proper" (Makridis)

- "rightly" (St.-Andre)

- "nobly" (Strodach)

For me, these words sound Aristotlean in that they imply some sort approved standard to abide by.

In my neighborhood there's an Episcopalian church that, until COVID, provided spaces for a Zen sitting group and a yoga studio. I don't know if that's common practice or the work of an enlightened priest, but that might be another option to explore. Although opening up to Epicureans might be beyond the pale!

Quote from Don

Desires imply cognition and rational decision-making, whereas pleasure and pain are sensations which we can't decide not to feel.

This needs a bit more parsing: I don't think that there's always a rational component to desires. In fact a large part of advertising is finding ways to create desires which get beneath the rational. Choosing whether or not to act on a desire is definitely a rational operation, but on some level a desire is a craving, a feeling, perhaps a type of pain.

From Oxford Languages Dictionary online:

de·sire /dəˈzī(ə)r/ noun

a strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen.

"a desire to work in the dirt with your bare hands"

You make some good points Don ... I'm definitely still percolating as well!

The 80/20 part needs a lot more explanation and clarification and is probably best left out for now. It also is a modern idea and is just confusing things at this point. (Having said that, the 80/20 Principle by Richard Koch is an excellent book on the subject, and one theme of the book is maximizing happiness.)

Quote from Don

the one thing that strikes me as askew is comparing desires with pleasure. Desires to me are one thing; pleasure and pain are another thing. Desires imply cognition and rational decision-making, whereas pleasure and pain are sensations which we can't decide not to feel.

Excellent point! I'm basically seeing the pursuit of pleasure and analysis of desires as two mental models to help achieve the goal of pleasure. In order to maximize our pleasure, we can focus on either or both. For the moment let's ignore the categories to get to the "higher level" thoughts. Thinking out loud, the moment that we "pursue" a pleasure we have created a desire that we are attempting to satisfy. By experiencing the pleasure, we have satisfied the desire. So any choice or avoidance is, I think, subject to this process as you rightly describe.

OK, so, working with choices and avoidances, let's now look at categories. I guess what I'm trying to get to is using PDs 15, 21, 26 and 30 as a boardwalk to the ocean of katastematic pleasure, and in so doing to demystify katastematic pleasure and make it a practical idea. The way that I'm trying to do this is by thinking in terms of efficiency: thinking through the things in our lives that give us the most lasting pleasure and/or the most nagging pain, and determining the most effective ways to address these things so as to maximize our pleasure. By no means would this mean eliminating the "icing on the cake" (or the cake), but it's a way to organize our time to provide the greatest pleasure, whatever that may be for each of us. It's also a way to dig into some of these issues like pleasure v desire, katastematic v kinetic, intensity and duration of pleasure....

Quote from Don

you're proposing that the bulk of our "baseline" pleasure is going to come from meeting our "natural and necessary" desires, but the kinetic pleasure is ...to make up a new metaphor... the icing that really makes the cake delicious?

Yes, but I'm reading natural and necessary as defined as "those that bring pain when unfulfilled and that don't take undue effort to fulfill." There is no pre-determined list of these things, they are only things described by this definition. And, to me, this definition describes desires that, when fulfilled, give us "a lot of bang for our buck", that bang for our buck being katastematic pleasure. So Epicurus isn't laying down some mystical dogma, he's describing the most efficient way to maximize our pleasure. Very practical and medicinal.

Katastematic pleasures then are those that result from specific (to each individual) natural and necessary desires as just defined. Referring to the examples in post #57 above, two of these could be (for a particular individual, and possibly changing over time) the pleasure of financial stability, and the pleasure of awe combined with a sense of belonging in the material universe.