Posts by Godfrey

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.

Personally I would stick to the word "pleasure" where DO uses hedone, and consider using "satisfaction" where he uses eudaimonia. But I much prefer Don 's "well-being" to satisfaction: well-being seems much more complete to me, if that makes any sense. As for substituting satisfaction for pleasure, I can't imagine running around and shouting to everyone about satisfaction!

Also, I think over time we've been getting to a more specific definition of "pleasure" as one part of the faculty of feeling. I don't think that this specificity takes away anything from the meaning of pleasure, but actually is helpful to fully understand it. That's why I wouldn’t substitute another word for hedone. I think that Epicurus and DO were being very specific when using that word. The word eudaimonia, to me, has more wiggle room to try out other English words.

One way to think about "absence of pain" and "living in a cave" is that it’s actually rather unnatural to live that way. Unless you're thinking in terms of how early humans lived, which I don't think is what Epicurus had in mind as his philosophy is intricately tied to the society in which he lived.

The feelings of pleasure and pain are an entirely natural faculty. Our goal is to live the most pleasant life, which we do by listening to our feelings and using them as a guide to action. A person who is striving for maximum frugality is at some point going to experience mental and/or physical pain. If they ignore that pain then they're doing the same thing that in other situations clearly leads to unnatural desires, in this case the unnatural desire for frugality. If a person thrives on frugality, and either experiences no pain or examines their pain and determines that bearing that pain will lead to greater pleasure for themselves, then for them the desire for frugality could be considered natural and unnecessary.

Quote from Cassius

Quote from Godfrey

They are desires which are divorced from the limit of the natural homeostatic relationship between pleasure and pain, and thus have become unlimited

Godfrey so you are saying that this is the definition of unnatural desires? And can you spell our further what you mean by "the natural homeostatic relationship between pleasure and pain?

That's my current interpretation.

The natural homeostatic relationship between pleasure and pain is my understanding of the contemporary idea that an excess of pleasure tends to produce pain, while pleasure can bring some relief from an excess of pain.

To my current understanding, the "non-natural" are best described as "unlimited" desires. They vary by the person and by the situation and can change over time. They are desires which are divorced from the limit of the natural homeostatic relationship between pleasure and pain, and thus have become unlimited. Some of them involve intense, conscious effort by the person in order to consciously limit them, while others have been eliminated by the person through reasoning as to how they would affect their pleasure and pain over time.

For instance, many people can enjoy a cocktail from time to time, maybe more. There are natural consequences to overindulgence such as a hangover or regrettable behavior. These provide a natural incentive to limit one's future consumption to what, for them, is an amount which balances a maximum of pleasure with a minimum of pain. So when the desire for that one extra drink arises they can choose to act based on their previous experience and consideration. This would be a case of natural desire.

On the other hand, this same situation for an alcoholic involves unlimited desires. They face extreme difficulty in acting rationally when faced with a strong desire for a drink, because their homeostatic functioning isn't working as it naturally should. This would be a case of unlimited desire.

To oversimplify, these two examples have the same basic pleasures and pains involved, but for one person the desire involved is natural, for the other person it's unlimited. These might be considered physical desires.

Things like the desire for fame, fortune and power would then be mental desires. Similarly to the previous examples, one person may have a naturally limited desire for one or more of them while someone else may have unlimited desire.

As to whether some unlimited desires are to be fully banished from our lives: that, too, is up to the individual and their particular circumstances. And in some circumstances, for some people, it seems like common sense to banish a particular desire and they don't need to think about it much. Whereas for other people and/or circumstances, a desire may need to be banished with great effort. Still another case is a desire that gets temporarily banished as being or becoming unlimited, then after a time it dissipates and becomes a natural desire to be healthfully enjoyed.

ADMIN NOTE: This thread was split off after Post 10 of the "Welcome Kungi" Thread here. The following series of posts were originally post 11 in that thread.

-----

Quote from Cassius

We need to continue to talk about how to avoid an overbroad formulation here and what issues arise with this. What exactly are "unnatural" pleasures? Should we seek none of them at all to any degree?

This is a prime example of confusing pleasures with desires. All pleasures are natural because pleasure/pain is the faculty of feeling. Desires are what need to be discussed in terms of what is natural, necessary, vain &c, not pleasures. I imagine this may sound like nitpicking but I'm increasingly convinced that it's an important point.

Limits seem to be a key factor in evaluating one's personal desires, at least in terms of desires which are naturally limiting v desires which need to be limited by the individual. But this is just one of several ways to evaluate desires, another being estimating resultant pleasures and pains.

Welcome Kungi!

The most important practical exercise for a person beginning to explore Epicurus is to set aside and follow through with a daily time to study. Epicurean philosophy is much more of a unified worldview than a specific set of practices. Paradoxically, it's a very straightforward philosophy, but, due to the dearth of original texts and the Academic backgrounds of many of the secondary writers, it takes quite a while to understand properly.

I agree with Cassius on the reading he recommends. There's also much here on the forums to review: an overwhelming amount!

Another practical exercise, which is equal in importance with the first that I mentioned, is to post questions and discuss issues of interest to you. Key to the philosophy is friendship and frank speech and this is one manifestation of those ideas.

Speaking only from my personal experience, I advise (with much respect) putting aside Hiram's book for a while. That was one of the first books that I read after discovering Epicurus, and I found that it wasn't a very direct path, for me personally, to understanding the philosophy. It may well be worthwhile for you to return to, but I don't advise it as a starting point.

One final recommendation would be to read Cicero’s On the Nature of the Gods. That's what started me on my Epicurean journey: I was attempting to reconcile some of the inconsistencies in Stoicism and realized, perhaps like you, that Epicurus had already done that.

Quote from Cassius

In outline, natural wealth is one of the many objects that we naturally seek in order to satisfy natural desires and thus feel pleasure.

A very good snippet re: desires and pleasure I pasted this for that in particular, natural is a separate issue.

Quote from Don

200. Don't think it unnatural (ἀφυσιολόγητον aphysiologēton) that when the body cries out, the soul cries also. The body says don't be hungry, don't be thirsty, don't be cold. It is difficult for the soul to prevent these cries, and dangerous for it to ignore the commands of nature because of attachment to its usual independence.

Good quote Don !

"...dangerous for it (the soul) to ignore the commands of nature because of attachment to its usual independence" is intriguing. This provides maybe the simplest description of vain desires: ignoring the commands of nature. And it implies the antidote: pay attention!

"...attachment to its usual independence" is less clear.