Posts by Godfrey

Quote from Kalosyni

one understands that god/gods are not creating all the phenomenon of the world but that they come from naturally occurring processes.

Unrelated to the subject of this thread (with my apologies), I like the way that you worded this Kalosyni . The wording that you've used here can include both the physical processes by which gods (godlike beings?) exist, as illustrated by the realist position, as well as the natural processes of both people grappling with the unknown and of cultural accretion as perhaps in the idealist position.

Notice that Plato is discussing necessary/unnecessary pleasures, whereas Epicurus distinguishes necessary/unnecessary desires. As we've discussed elsewhere, this is an important distinction, specially since all pleasures are defined as good by Epicurus.

Rereading my last post, it would seem that I do agree with "we would never... pursue a desire that is neither natural or necessary." I pursue desires that are unnecessary, but I do try to avoid the unnatural.

To my embarrassment it seems that I misread the statement in the original post 😬

Quote from Cassius

In fact, a major difference came out last night, in that one view is that if we can determine that a desire is neither natural nor necessary, then there is no reason to consider evaluating that action according to the hedonic calculus. That's because it is the point of view of some that we would NEVER under any circumstances pursue a desire that is neither natural nor necessary. In our meeting last night we had specific disagreement on that

In answer to your question Cassius, this.

I specifically disagree with that

I rule out the unnatural desires, but find the unnecessary desires to be a source of great pleasure. The key to enjoying pleasures resulting from unnecessary desires is to realize that you can thrive without them and yet can fully enjoy them when they're readily available. For me, ruling out the unnecessary veers toward a life of asceticism.

Another thing that I find to be true, at least for me, is that what is necessary can change with changing circumstances but what is unnatural is rather consistent.

I would begin with natural or unnatural, and eliminate the unnatural desires. Then I would reason out whether the resultant pleasures are likely to outweigh any pains involved. This goes along with my thinking that the natural and unnecessary desires are the sweet spot of day to day choices and avoidances. I examine these in terms of both the desires and the potential pleasures/pains, in no particular order.

Quote from Eikadistes

We define virtue as a good used to achieve the goal of pleasure, and we recognize virtuous behavior as acting "practically, properly, and peaceably" (KD5). Practicing these virtues requires choice and avoidance, like avoiding things that lead to guilt, so avoiding guilt is definitely virtuous because it is a choice made to reduce pain and maximize pleasure, which is the goal of life.

The underlined part of this quote is, for me, the key point. Guilt is experienced as pain. In evaluating the pleasures v the pains in any particular activity, if there is the potential for feeling guilt we would need to include that in our analysis.

VS71: Ask this question of every desire: what will happen to me if the object of desire is achieved, and what if not?

And for you as well Pacatus!

Quote from Matteng

A strict rule based decision making I find difficult, we need always sober reasoning/prudence to judge/feel the consequences and the context to make good choices/avoidances.

This is well said and definitely bears repeating.

Quote from Don

there's a whole genre of sci-fi where lab-grown humanoids and cyborgs create issues. For a humorous take, see the Murderbot Diaries.

That show was quite amusing! There's also a movie, The Island, which grapples with the subject, though not with a lot of intellectual depth. I only mention it because of the fun fact that the wombs which the clones were grown in were literally designed as scaled up breast implants.

I'm in agreement with Don on this issue as far as I can tell. His post above points out what I have considered the basic problem, which is that the uploading idea, as far as I know, is typically presented as "a brain in a box", which is to me obviously untenable.

The more "realistic" approach would be to re-create a fully functioning brain in a fully functioning body, in a real world environment. This would seemingly increase the complexity of the problem exponentially, but might make the idea of reproducing consciousness captivating for those who take pleasure in pondering hypotheticals.

As for me, I'm off to the gym to work off my Thanksgiving feast. Bottoms up!

Can't say why that brings this to mind...

Happy 20th, all!

Personally, I kind of like "corrosive": these desires eat away at our well-being. But I would look at this similarly to the way that I look at the Tetrapharmakon, which is as a mnemonic for people who are already comfortable of the ideas of natural, unnatural, necessary, unnecessary. In this case, "corrosive" just adds a little oomph to the concept.

Lately I've become interested in Dia de los Muertos as something compatible with EP. At least as far as remembering and celebrating our deceased loved ones. It probably has a supernatural element that isn't compatible but, at least for me that's easily ignored.

Here in southern California the decorations abound and it seems to be widely celebrated, so it's kind of a natural fit. Probably not so much in the Southern states....

Quote from Cassius

I would think that it would probably be a generality that a physicist would likely consider discovery as generically more pleasurable than many other pleasures, or else one would not choose to be a physicist

True, but this choice would then be tested by actual experience once the choice has been made. As another example, consider somebody who chooses the law as a profession. Many who make that choice continue in a long and pleasurable career, while others quickly burn out and find something less painful to pursue. And for the ones who remain in the profession, often a process ensues of navigating their way to the most enjoyable way to practice, which may prove to be far different than the practice they initially envisioned.

Digressing to a physicist, or anyone making a creative discovery or innovation....

The desire for fame is what I would consider a prime example of an unnatural desire, so I'll ignore that. Even so, often a creative discovery is the result of "scratching an itch," or problem solving to remove a pain. Additionally, the creative process itself is often pleasurable yet often tortuous. All to say that the predominance of pleasure over pain might be quantifiable in retrospect for a very specific instance, but that it's ridiculous to try to make a generic statement ranking the pleasure of making a discovery as higher or lower than any other specific pleasure.

By which I'm agreeing with the posts above that emphasize that understanding the guidance of one's personal pleasures and pains is the proper emphasis for living an Epicurean lifestyle.

This discussion touches on a way in which hedonism often harbors an awareness of the well-being of others, even those beyond our immediate loved ones. For some, such as myself, the thought of the harm to, say, society in this case, brings personal pain which may outweigh any pleasure that I would experience from the technology in question. One could call that being a Luddite, or you could think of it as listening to one's feelings to better assess how to respond to a situation.

A key to listening to one's feelings is understanding that feelings change over time, and one needs to be open to continually assessing their feelings over time. This is the process.

Anyway, back to the discussion....

Say farewell to AI bubble, prepare for the crash:

Say farewell to AI bubble, prepare for the crash

A sidebar on grief, and its many layers...

One aspect to consider, which I think can only follow after the wailing war widow phase, is to parse out what exactly you are grieving. Is it for your loved one's experience of being no more? Are you grieving for yourself, as you live in loneliness? Is it the fear of moving on, and in doing so losing your memories of your loved one? Is it grief for what the deceased will never have a chance to do?

Then there's the practical aspect of moving forward and continuing to pursue your most fulfilling life. You're in a place that you never expected to be. You might be older and more vulnerable than in the past, realizing that you need to be open to life and new possibilities, and that you have to learn new ways of doing so.

Obviously there's much more. But Epicurus has provided a framework, if not a path, to continue to pursue your best life. His opponents, in their glib talk of manliness and strength. Have completely missed the point.

This reminds me of the hymn "Onward Christian Soldiers".... marching as to war, with the cross of Jesus going on before (that's from memory, I may have misquoted).