Posts by Godfrey

Quote from Don

[ U533 ]

Uncertain Epicurean Author, Vol. Herc. 2, VII.21 col. XXVIII: The chief of all goods, even if there weren’t any other, is that by which he who possesses it advances toward virtue.

Yikes!

One interesting tidbit on NewEpicurean.com is Cosma Raimondi. I don't think I've heard of her before and I'll certainly read her letter.

This subject came up in a Zoom last week, here is my attempt to elaborate.

One of the primary things that opponents of Epicurus seize on negatively is the idea that pleasure is the goal of life or the greatest good. I’ve been toying with the question: “This may have been a useful formulation for a specific ancient argument, but is it a useful formulation of the philosophy?” Did Epicurus conceive of his philosophy in this way? Or is this another sledgehammer tactic from his opponents to discredit him by removing the nuance from his thinking? All too often, I think that it’s used for the latter.

When practicing the philosophy, I find that the most benefit comes from being aware of both pleasure and pain, while striving for pleasure. To focus strictly on my pleasure without an understanding of my pain is ultimately unfulfilling. Pain, after all, is half of the guide and Epicurus constantly makes that clear. We can’t paper over what pains us with pleasure. If we want to maximize pleasure, at some point we need to address our pains, whether we eliminate them or just figure out how to live with them. That’s pretty self-evident to most of us, I imagine.

I did a quick review of the Principle Doctrines and the Letter to Menoikeus to see how intricately pleasure and pain are intertwined. Wherever Epicurus describes pleasure, he clarifies what he means by tying it to pain or adding other nuance. This is because pleasure and pain are, together, the Canonic faculty of the Feelings and thus the guide to a life of well-being. Pleasure, by itself, is but half of that faculty and this must be understood in order to live a life in accord with nature. Pleasure as the goal or greatest good is a concept that only comes after this fact.

Principal Doctrines (Saint-Andre translation):

PD01: That which is blissful and immortal has no troubles itself, nor does it cause trouble for others, so that it is not affected by anger or gratitude (for all such things come about through weakness). [A primary criticism of a life of pleasure is that it is selfish and takes no account of others. Here, in the very first PD, is one refutation of that.]

PD03-PD05: 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. Pain does not last continuously in the flesh; instead, the sharpest pain lasts the shortest time, a pain that exceeds bodily pleasure lasts only a few days, and diseases that last a long time involve delights that exceed their pains. It is not possible to live joyously without also living wisely and beautifully and rightly, nor to live wisely and beautifully and rightly without living joyously; and whoever lacks this cannot live joyously. [This is a description of how to work with the Feelings. Note that I’ve grouped them in paragraph format, as we have speculated elsewhere is the way that they were actually written.]

In 4 of the first 5 doctrines, then, Epicurus has defined what he means by pleasure as part of the faculty of Feelings, and his definition includes pain. Interestingly, pain both of oneself and of others. He also ties it in with other conclusions of his science: the gods in PD01 and death in PD02. The remaining doctrines that deal with pleasure add detail to this description.

From the Letter to Menoikeus, 128-132 (Saint-Andre translation):

[After discussing the desires, he continues:] The steady contemplation of these facts enables you to understand everything that you accept or reject in terms of the health of the body and the serenity of the soul — since that is the goal of a completely happy life. Our every action is done so that we will not be in pain or fear. As soon as we achieve this, the soul is released from every storm, since an animal has no other need and must seek nothing else to complete the goodness of body and soul. Thus we need pleasure only when we are in pain caused by its absence; but when we are not in pain then we have no need of pleasure.

This is why we say that pleasure is the beginning and the end of a completely happy life. For we recognize it as the primary and innate good, we honor it in everything we accept or reject, and we achieve it if we judge every good thing by the standard of how that thing affects us. And because this is the primary and inborn good, we do not choose every pleasure. Instead, we pass up many pleasures when we will gain more of what we need from doing so. And we consider many pains to be better than pleasures, if we experience a greater pleasure for a long time from having endured those pains. So every pleasure is a good thing because its nature is favorable to us, yet not every pleasure is to be chosen — just as every pain is a bad thing, yet not every pain is always to be shunned. It is proper to make all these decisions through measuring things side by side and looking at both the advantages and disadvantages, for sometimes we treat a good thing as bad and a bad thing as good…. [This passage calls pleasure the primary and innate good, but overall the passage is a description of the faculty of Feelings and how we work with that faculty. The primary and innate good is only in that context.]

So when we say that pleasure is the goal, we do not mean the pleasures of decadent people and lying in a bed of desire, as is believed by those who are ignorant or who don't understand us or who are ill-disposed to us, but to be free from bodily pain and mental disturbance. For a pleasant life is produced not by drinking and endless parties and bedding boys and women and consuming fish and other delicacies of an extravagant table, but by sober reasoning, searching out the cause of everything we accept or reject, and driving out opinions that cause the greatest trouble in the soul. [This passage is often cited by the “absence of pain” enthusiasts, but note how the focus of this and the previous passage is the close relationship between pleasure and pain and how to use the faculty of the Feelings.]

Practical wisdom is the foundation of all these things and is the greatest good. [Practical wisdom is understanding how to properly work with pleasure and pain as the guide of life. This gives it a case for being the greatest good. But isn’t the greatest good pleasure? Is “the greatest good” hyperbole rather than the basis of the philosophy?] Thus practical wisdom is more valuable than philosophy and is the source of every other excellence, teaching us that it is not possible to live joyously without also living wisely and beautifully and rightly, nor to live wisely and beautifully and rightly without living joyously. For the excellences grow up together with the pleasant life, and the pleasant life is inseparable from them. [Again, practical wisdom is understanding how to work with the faculty of the Feelings.]

To my understanding, there is a case to be made that the fundamental description of Epicurus’ ethics is “the faculty of pleasure and pain is the guide to life” and is a much better description than “pleasure is the goal (or the greatest good)”. Better for understanding EP, and better for discussing with opponents. Further, this seems to be in keeping with current neuroscience, although that’s an issue for another post. Focusing on the Canon is the starting point for an accurate understanding of the philosophy. Focusing on pleasure is important, but as the be-all end-all it tends to make a caricature of the philosophy. Epicurus’ extant texts have the nuance to avoid this characterization, but unfortunately, opponents such as Cicero have laid the groundwork for using a cartoon of pleasure, minus the balance of pain, as yet another means to discredit EP. Rather than starting with attempting to refute the characterizations of others, wouldn’t we be prudent to emphasize our correct understanding of Epicurus?

Hopefully this makes some sense... any thoughts?

I seem to recall that the Wenham article in the Filebase is helpful on this subject as well.

This is true, but I don't think that Epicurus' ideas became as widespread as they were in antiquity by way of logical arguments. Obviously there were logical arguments going on, but my speculation is that the commoner Epicureans that Cicero griped about would have understood the philosophy through direct experience. The practice of frank speech would have been one method to help to analyze direct experience. Logical arguments lose their pursuasiveness once one has a visceral understanding of a philosophy.

The nurturing of nuanced observation of pleasures, pains and desires may once have been a group activity in the Garden, but now we're left to figure it out on our own. Perhaps there's a way to reintroduce a semi-structured version of this type of observation for our current situation. It might begin with a tightly focused exercise and advance from there. And such an exercise, or series of exercises, could be of interest to people who are looking for alternatives to the popular Stoic exercises.

Cassius I think you're leading right up to the answer to your question. The best way to discuss pleasure, pain and neutral is by leading with the sensations and feelings, not by leading with logic. As it's playoff season in many sports right now, think of it as making use of the home court advantage. Cicero and his ilk have claimed the home court and are refusing to play an away game.

Rather than play Cicero’s game, we could design an exercise to lead through a Canonic process. Ask if the person is in a neutral state at the moment. If not, what are they experiencing and how would they describe it in terms of pleasure or pain? If they say that they are in a neutral state, ask them where they typically feel pain or stress in their body. Then ask them how that spot feels now. Is it neutral? Whether yes or no, have them try relaxing the spot and describe how that feels. The idea is to get them to experience the subtleties of the feelings, and then to understand that they are guides. It all begins there, and that's where the argument should begin. We need to get back on our home court.

Some thoughts on the neutral state:

What are the limits of the neutral state?

To me, insisting on a neutral state is a means of jackhammering all of the subtlety out of Epicurean ethics (something which the "insufferable" Cicero loves to do). First, it removes the usefulness of pleasure and pain as guides unless you can determine the limits of pleasure, pain and the neutral state. Practically speaking, when I was new to this philosophy and began to examine the supposed neutral state, I discovered that it is more properly described as the "oblivious state". The more that I looked, the more pleasure and pain I discovered in what I previously would have considered to be without feeling, and the more information I realized was available for exploring the guidance of the feelings. A classic method of negating any idea that one opposes is to reduce it to a slogan, and in fact this is what the neutral state is if you look closely.

The affective circumplex illustrates this well. An opponent of Epicurus might say that the point 0,0 is the neutral state and that the goal is to hit and remain at that target. This bothered me when I first encountered the circumplex. But if you attempt to pinpoint any point on the circumplex you soon see that you really can't: each point represents a fleeting moment in time. As you try to zero in on any particular point in the circumplex you realize that your attention to the subtlety of the feelings must increase the closer you get to the point that you are trying to pin down. 0,0 is simply the limit of either side of the axes.

Stephen White

"So when we say that pleasure is the end, we do not mean the pleasures of the dissolute or those of indulgence, as some mistakenly maintain, whether out of disagreement or malicious distortion."

Noting that I'm completely ignorant of the Greek, I could see how pleasures of "indulgence" in this translation could refer to being out of limits.

Life and the world suddenly make sense when freed from religious faith. This freedom allows the great pleasure of personal agency and responsibility.

A proper understanding of Epicurus doesn't just fall off the page: it takes time, and work, but ultimately is very rewarding.

As noted, there isn't much remaining from Epicurus himself, and many of the ancient sources are hostile. As is much of the modern and contemporary scholarship.

My process began with reading as much I could find, often haphazardly, and trying to make sense of it. Then I discovered this forum; at that time writing and developing personal outlines of the philosophy was being emphasized. I found writing and getting feedback on an outline was very helpful, a bit intimidating, and just a beginning.

A key part of my process has been to try to put to use what I've read and to see if it is useful in my daily life. This has been very helpful, as it has allowed me to shed some unhelpful ideas while continuing to pursue those which I find fruitful.

Continuing with reading: modern, non-Epicurean authors such as Victor Stenger, Lisa Feldman Barrett and many others have proven to be quite relevant for me. Plus some (but not much, I find it painful!) reading of Plato and Aristotle has been really good for providing context. Even a book or two on the pre-Socratics has been quite interesting, to show the early development of Greek thought.

In short, for me at least, Epicurus has proven to be a gateway to all sorts of study and understanding. So much of his thinking is being built upon even today, mostly without acknowledgement. He wrote that he got great pleasure from the study of natural philosophy, and I'm finding something similar. The interesting thing is that so much divergent reading can lead to a better understanding of what Epicurus was saying so long ago.

The Stoics are famous for their "spiritual exercises"; this continuing study is an important Epicurean exercise. As is always testing what you read through your direct experience.

Hopefully this rambling post is of some relevance to your question ThinkingCat !

I'd like to attend.

Somewhat related, this video plots humanity in relation to the age of the universe using a 4 mile long model in the desert.

Thanks Kalosyni ! Lots of useful information in a short and concise video.

Isn't "perfect" more along the lines of a Platonic ideal than an actionable concept? What is the most perfect iteration of any given thing? If you're comparing several things you can determine one to be the most perfect based on the criteria you select. Beyond that, anything can always be more perfect. But how would you define "Perfect"? It's much like "Quality" in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

As a practical matter, "perfect" can be used as a label. But that varies from person to person, from life stage to life stage, from context to context.

(I haven't read any of the above attachments, so apologies if I'm just repeating something said elsewhere.)

Comparing #12 to #21, I would describe (poorly, I admit) #12 as having almost "pugilistic" features compared to Epicurus' typical portrayal. That's a bad word choice, but the one that comes immediately to mind. Look at #12's broad, short nose, compared with Epicurus' relatively long, thin nose. #12's head shape seems thicker, Epicurus' longer.

Put another way, I picture (rightly or wrongly) Epicurus as an ectomorph body type based on his typical portrayal, whereas I picture #12 as more of an endomorph type.

Now that it's not so early, the book cover doesn't look like Epicurus. As for #12, the shape of the head seems wrong and he's way too stern to accord with the images of Epicurus that I'm used to seeing.

A large part of the problem could be that different artists had different interpretations. Or different levels of skill. How many statues of contemporary athletes have you seen that look nothing like the athlete?

BTW there's a YouTube video of James Corden showing David Beckham a goofy version of his statue before the unveiling, which is a great send up of the modern athlete statue.

On the book cover his right shoulder is much higher so they are would appear to be different sculptures. However after examining #12 above and then looking at the book cover, the book cover looks more like Epicurus

But it's early here, and I'm looking on my phone, so there's much squinting involved.

Interesting that the PDs are referred to as "sentences." In the Saint-Andre translation I quickly counted only 5 as having more than one sentence. This may help to explain, at least to a degree, how they were divided into the current 40 PDs: the original groupings may have simply been separated into sentences.

Somewhere I read, although I can't remember where, that the authorship of the PDs was in question. Wherever I read it, I think a footnote connected the idea to an Italian source. Tantalizing, but not much help!

To me, Epicurus has a slightly thinner face with slightly more pronounced cheekbones than the figure in #5 and #12; I would not say that that is Epicurus. Looks much more stern than Epicurus as well. But if the image is labeled "Epicurus," that could explain how it ended up on the Guyau book cover.

Cassius do you use LibreOffice Draw for your highlighted and underlined text clips that you post? For your other posted graphics? I use other aspects of LibreOffice but haven't tried Draw.