Posts by Godfrey

I'll use this opportunity to get back on my desire soapbox. Desires are what we actually work with; pleasure and pain are reactions. I've got a working hypothesis that the categories of desires describe the upper and lower limits of desires (not pleasures), and that by defining these for oneself, a person develops a personal sweet spot for working with desires in order to discover what leads to their most pleasant life.

In the Principle Doctrines, it seems that the Doctrines on pleasure go from more theoretical to more practical as you progress through the Doctrines. So I'm also thinking that PD18-21 may actually be more pertinent, once one has worked through the earlier ones. I think that they build on each other. After that come the PDs on desires. One's understanding has to progress through the sequence in order to gain a practical understanding of the ethics.

Sorry that I won't make it, but I have two comments on PD21. Maybe more like questions than comments....

I was thinking that "the limits of life" in this PD may actually be "the limits of the good life". Looking through Nate's compilation I see that Strodach actually used that wording, although he's the only one and I've no idea of the Greek nuance.

The reason this may be important is that what is described in this PD might be considered a lower limit of the good life. I know of no evidence for this, but it comes from my thinking that the categories of desires describe a sweet spot between a lower limit of a good life as described here, and an upper limit at the nebulous place where desires become unlimited.

Cassius just blame it on an unknown scholar, that's where I thought the grouping came from

Here it is:

Post

A foodie ponders Epicurus the epicurean

https://www.academia.edu/11401667/_Epic…es_philosopher_

This essay was a nice accompaniment to my tea and dark chocolate this morning. I enjoyed the author's discussion of pleasure, food and friendship in the Garden. He also addressed Plato nicely. I'm not so sure about his linking Epicurus to liberalism, but I really haven't given that much thought so maybe I'm exposing my ignorance. All in all, I found it a very perceptive piece that, to me, conceives of Epicurus much as we do here and…

Godfrey

February 9, 2020 at 3:38 PM

Kalosyni please consider posting more if you read further in the book! I read a short article some time ago by (I think) the same author. I enjoyed the article and was curious how the author was going to develop his ideas. I also think we have a thread on that: I'll see if I can find it.

It was said in another thread that PD22 was included in a "paragraph" with PD18-21 (I don't remember where that grouping was written). I was just reading through the PDs by Saint-Andre and, at least in his translation I felt that PD22 would be more appropriately lumped with PD23-25. It's almost a transition between the two groups, but to me it fits better with the latter group.

I have no idea what scholar I'm disagreeing with but I thought I'd mention it

Archetypes are interesting to ponder from an ancient Greek framework. Are they ideal forms? Are they prolepseis/pre-conceptions/anticipations?

If they're the former, we're being sucked into Plato’s world. The latter might find a place in an Epicurean worldview but I don't have a cohesive opinion on the matter. I spent a couple weeks reading about them at one point and by the end of my reading I thought that they weren't as compelling as I had anticipated they might have been. But there’s lots to dig into, and analyzing them with respect to pre-conceptions could be fruitful, particularly since pre-conceptions seem to be intertwined with the understanding of Epicurean gods.

The attached paper seems pretty pertinent, so much so that I almost posted it when I first read it. So much to discuss, so little time!

(Living with the Gods: On Beliefs and Peoples by Neil MacGregor is a book that I'd heartily recommend to anyone interested in an art historical take on gods, although I don't think that it deals with archetypes. It's a hefty book, but an enjoyable read.)

I believe that there's some controversy about the validity of Jungian archetypes even among Jungians. I read an article a while back that discussed that, but I may be confusing the details. If a thread gets going I'll try to find the article and post it.

Isonomia is a really juicy topic, and yet another one that baffles me. It would make a great thread on its own; in fact I think we were discussing it not too long ago.

My take is that PS18-22 are discussing a finite human life in contrast to infinite time. Infinite time, space, quantities &c seem to me to be a different topic from this. Isonomia seems to be something implied by infinity, but I'm not even sure about that as I think the usage attributed to Epicurus is different from the common Greek usage.

Don : yes, that's a good paraphrase!

I would add that the PDs are stated in terms of limits and of nature, which ties into other uses of those terms. But yours is a good summary of the point of these particular PDs, at least as I currently understand them.

Why thank you Don !

A key point for me is that infinite and finite time are being discussed, not infinite and finite life. Those are two completely different discussions.

Quote

The flesh assumes that the limits of joy are infinite, and that infinite joy can be produced only through infinite time. But the mind, thinking through the goal and limits of the flesh and dissolving fears about eternity, produces a complete way of life and therefore has no need of infinite time;

I think that this passage is specifically making that point. If you understand the limits of the flesh and don't fear being dead, then you can focus on the goal without stressing over the fact that you won't live forever. There's no point in thinking about infinite pleasure because the flesh doesn't last forever. Revel in the time you have, as it were.

Cassius I think these PDs are making the same point that you frequently make: one's life is finite and there's no afterlife, so make the most of the time you have. As we don't pick the most at a banquet (which is also finite) but the most pleasant. The more I read them, the more I see that as the point. No talk of jellybeans is necessary for these PDs, that discussion only confuses the point here.

At least that's my current take. I found these rather baffling before reading this thread, but this seems to me to be the clearest reading. I don't think Epicurus was playing word games. I think he was making the above point, and elaborates by emphasizing the language he uses elsewhere regarding the goal of life. He doesn't use word games but he does write things in such a way that you have to think about them and thereby make them your own.

Quote

Finite time and infinite time contain the same amount of joy, if its limits are measured out through reasoning.

At the risk of over-simplifying, this line jumps out at me. A human lifespan is by nature limited and there is no afterlife. So I'm seeing this line as contrasting a limited, natural lifespan with an unlimited amount of time. One's life contains a fixed amount of joy, no matter that time may be infinite. He's referring to his reasoning on the vanity of the fear of death. There's no need for hypotheticals here, just sensible reasoning.

Kalosyni I noticed on your blog post that you list planning as a pleasure of anticipation. I like that you did that: I often think of planning as tedious, that it requires thinking about things that need to be done, pleasant or not. Reframing planning as anticipation of future pleasures is a really good approach and helpful for keeping the goal of pleasure at hand while planning, thus making planning an Epicurean "exercise".

No need to apologize reneliza ! I think that we need specifics like you've posted; it helps all of us as we bounce back and forth from theory to practice. Good post!

Quote from Cassius

What I am wanting to see here is a good explanation of how we can recognize that while an extreme of a good may be unobtainable, a lesser amount of that good is definitely desirable and working hard to get, and any formula we develop has to take that into account.

Cassius this doesn't give you the answer you're looking for, but there doesn't seem to be any formula other than frank speech. The line between N/N and unlimited desire, as far as I can tell, is so individual that it can only be dealt with on an individual basis, like medicine. People needing to depend on formulas might be better served by the Stoics (except that they would then lose the benefit of a coherent worldview).

It might be more relatable and/or useful to those of us who are not interested in power or unlimited wealth to think about the desires to live forever, to have perfect health, or some other visceral desire. By visceral, I mean something that we've reasoned out for ourselves. We've come to the intellectual conclusion that the particular desire is limitless, yet we still subtly (or not) experience it on a physical level.

Other examples might be media influenced: the desire to look a certain way, to weigh less or more. I think that a big part of the vain desires are to some extent unconscious, so only by really being aware of our feelings do we become aware of them.

What I'm thinking of are desires that we can wrestle with as individuals, as opposed to desires that are easier to discuss and resolve intellectually. Both are important, but the personal wrestling matches are how we can really dig in for a deeper understanding.

Quote from reneliza

But an Epicurean could live a minimal life out of necessity and nothing would be lost or fall short. It would still be a complete life without detraction as long as they still had their reasoned understanding of the good (pleasure) and no fear of death.

I think the author makes this point in the second paper. But I could be confusing it with one of these papers...Ratio_Aponia_Ataraxia_On_the_Proem_of_Bo.pdf

Practicing_Ataraxia_at_Lucretius_De_reru.pdf. I'd never make it as an academic

PD07 and PD10 address this point pretty directly.