Posts by Godfrey

Quote from Don

The pleasure derived from the anticipation of eating or the recollection of eating is always katastematic.

This doesn't sound right to me; at first blush I'd consider these to be kinetic. Katastematic, to me, would be more along the lines of the stable pleasure of knowing that you aren't going to go hungry any time soon, or the stable pleasure of having a correct worldview. Even though the anticipation or recollection of eating are "inner" pleasures, they are very kinetic. I see the difference between the activity and the anticipation of the activity as physical v mental and not kinetic v katastematic.

Quote from Cristiano Luchini

Above all the pursuit of pleasure, hedonism, which is something absolutely nonexistent in Epicurus' thought. Pleasure as understood by him is the absence of pain, not the pleasure of the senses.

Egads! This is a seriously over-selective reading of the texts and, to me, a complete misunderstanding of the Canon and the Physics.

Quote from Cassius

And moving toward "life" is a much more accurate and satisfying way forward rather than obsessing over "katastematic pleasure" or "pleasures of rest."

This makes sense to me when you consider that canonic pleasure is the guide to a healthy life. However "life itself," or being alive, often and for many can involve a preponderance of pain over pleasure. Being alive is our greatest gift, moving toward "life" or pleasure seems more in line with the greatest good and I'm not convinced that Epicurus was trying to make that particular leap of reasoning.

However.... If one were to reach the conclusion that "virtue" is the greatest good then the approach might be different. Virtue is an abstract idea. Life is an objective experience. Framed in this way, life is a greater good than any abstract ideal (at least, I assume, for most of us reading this).

On the lighter side, an entertaining sci-fi novel that explores near death experiences is Passage by Connie Willis.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passage_(Willis_novel)

It might be useful to put the tags table in the Tools drop down menu.

Another enjoyable podcast!

Here's a quotation that makes a case against Lucretius having written a seventh book:

Study of endings and closure in classical poetry (in particular of the abrupt and unsettling end of the Aeneid, with its image of Aeneas killing Turnus after Turnus's surrender, which also was once widely attributed to the poem's unfinished state) has made clearer that the abrupt ending of the De rerum natura is far less an anomaly than earlier readers suggested. The opening reference to Athens and suffering mortals is likely a structuring device linking the beginning and end of the book. At any rate, the sixth book clearly constitutes the end of the poem in Lucretius's overall plan, not only because he has created the neat structure of three pairs of books but also because he announces this book as the final one near the end of the proem, with a punning invocation of the Muse Calliope and a reminiscence of the prayer to Venus in book 1: "Precede me and mark out my course, as I run my stint to the white line of my final goal, callida Musa Calliope (clever Muse Calliope), repose of men and delight of gods, that with you as leader I may win the crown with signal glory" (6.92-95). From https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poets/lucretius

Also, in light of the discussion, PD01 sounds a bit like a predecessor to "what would Jesus do?" in addition to its other interpretations. I hadn't thought of it in that way before.

Thanks for that, Joshua ! That's one of my favorite passages from Lucretius; nice to have a reminder!

The biggest risk I ever took in my working life was to leave a very stable job, in which I was miserable, for a life with zero prospects. I was married, with two small children at the time. It took me two years to take action and leave, and after a few months of scraping by I came into an opportunity which forever changed my life, and my family's lives, for the better.

Relationships are an interesting example. Even in a perfect relationship you'll get your heart broken. It's morbid, but you're both going to die and probably not at the same time. But think of the potential for joy in the relationship compared to the grief. Another illustration is to imagine getting a pet: odds are that you'll outlive the pet, and it will break your heart. But would you trade all of the joy, comfort and love to avoid the pain of loss?

This hints at "hedonic calculus", a phrase with which I'm very uncomfortable. Any choice or avoidance is, in the end, based on the faculty of the Feelings and not on any sort of mathematics. So the work is to really search your feelings (and your preconceptions), both positive (pleasure) and negative (pain). Then remind yourself that there's no neutral state, and continue to experience your feelings.

Thanks for that TauPhi ! Although there might be a more compassionate imaginary friend than Tyler Durden...

Quote from Pacatus

We also need something to the effect that we're not talking "Pleasure" in the abstract as an antidote to pain, but the real feelings of pleasure that are particular to the individual concerned, such that we focus on seeking out things that are pleasurable to person feeling overwhelmed.

Enjoy tiny bites of easily obtained pleasure. Even if they're only for a minute or two; gradually build from there. Just a chance to enjoy a moment of respite.

Remember as often as possible that pleasure and pain are the guides, and think about what small (or large) things you can do differently to reduce your pain of overwhelm and increase your pleasure. Understand that working in this way will improve your experience, as well as that of those around you.

Also understand that duty is subservient to pleasure, not the other way around. This may be the most difficult as well as the most important.

Letting go of the supernatural may have caused the biggest change in me. I now spend my time learning how best to enjoy this life, rather than searching for something that (in all likelihood) doesn't exist.

Quote from Little Rocker

We just don't have the freedom to choose to act on something other than what we consider most pleasant.

That's an interesting statement and I've never thought about the Feelings in this way. My first take is that we, as humans, do have the freedom to choose to act on something other than what we consider most pleasant. But doing so will just make us miserable. As Epicureans, we have the good sense to reason correctly and will choose what is the most pleasant.

My second take is: hmmm, maybe we don't have that freedom.... Our reasoning is one of many inputs into the feelings, and faulty reasoning can lead to reactions from the feelings that guide us to misery. The feelings can only react to the input that they receive: garbage in, garbage out.

Third, this is a case in which I would answer that the original question of this thread is an abstraction. We Epicureans believe that the faculty of the Feelings is universal to all organisms and we pursue pleasure as it is Feeling which is the guide toward well-being. To tie this in with the quote above from Little Rocker, I would add that the more aware we are of our sensations and feelings, the more nuance is available to us in our choices and avoidances. The gray area, for me, remains whether we are able to "override" the guidance of our feelings or whether we give too much weight to reason and are simply unaware of our true feelings.

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.