We are revising our participation requirements so that new registrants will be able to post only in the "Welcome New Members" section until they are approved for posting in other forums. A "Welcome" message will be posted for each new registrant - please post in response to that here so you application can be fully processed.
Are these programs types of zettelkasten? I've been watching some videos and looking through the Google store and this is the impression I'm getting. It looks like it could be useful for taking hyperlinked notes on my reading at the very least.
Can text be copied in to these programs from Libre Office? I'd hate to have to re-type old notes.
I've been using Trello for years (although I never heard of a zettelkasten before). It seems to be a type of zettelkasten, but in a very different format.
1. Absolutely!
2. It would appear that he held there to be many, which makes sense to me.
3. He seems to have used "foundational". For me, this is much clearer than "greatest", and ties pleasure to the Canon which is critical to understanding EP.
4. I'm not sure about this one way or the other.
5. "Foundational good" works well for me to describe pleasure, particularly since I feel that it ties it to the Canon. Calling it the Epicurean good does it a disservice in my mind by limiting it. Foundational can still be universal without getting into the rabbit hole of "greatest".
More goodies from the Letter to Menoikeus:
128. And this is why we say pleasure is the foundation and fulfillment of the blessed life. [129] Because we perceived pleasure as a fundamental good and common to our nature, and so, as a result of this, we begin every choice and rejection against this, judging every good thing by the standard of how that pleasure affects us or how we react to considering experiencing that pleasure. And because pleasure is the fundamental and inborn good, this is why not every pleasure is seized....
To me, "fundamental and inborn" reads as a description of the Canonic faculty and not as "the Good".
130. Additionally, we believe αὐτάρκεια is a great good.
132. And so the foundation of all these and the greatest good is φρόνησις, practical wisdom. On this account, practical wisdom is prized more dearly than philosophy itself....
130 and 132 are two more uses of good: great good and the greatest good. So pleasure is foundational, fundamental, inborn; self sufficiency is a great good; practical wisdom is the greatest good. Obviously this directly contradicts the assertion that pleasure is the Good, but it doesn't contradict pleasure being foundational, fundamental, inborn, Canonic.
Quote from DonIt seems to me that the "actual linguistic meaning" of"good", at its most basic, is simply "that which provides pleasure." "Evil" is"that which causes pain."
I'm pretty sure we can all agree on this.
To me it becomes questionable when it's stated as "the Good", and that seems to be just a philosophical argument which leads down a rabbit hole and is of limited or no practical use. All of the examples in post #37 are "lower case" goods and make sense both practically and philosophically as far as I can tell.
If I remember correctly from The Greeks on Pleasure, the earlier philosophers were searching for the most pleasant life, not the greatest good.
Having said that, here are some of my notes from the book that might be pertinent (they're scattered throughout the book as shown by the reference numbers):
8.3.1 Eudoxus of Cnidus (via Aristotle): pleasure is the good because:
- all animals, including men, pursue it, and what all pursue is the good
- all animals and men avoid pain as an evil, and what is opposite of an evil, pleasure, must be good
- pleasure is never for the sake of something else: no one ever asks "why enjoy yourself?"
- if pleasure is added to anything it makes it better.
So at least some philosophers were discussing "the good".
11.3.10 Aristotle is saying that to enjoy something is to bring a telos to the doing: to do it to the full.
13.2.4 Telos is not a decisively purpose word like goal, but it equally means completion or perfection. Aristotle often uses it as actualization of natural potential.
FWIW, I tend to think along similar lines as Cassius, that "the greatest good" is more of a philosophical argument carried on by others. In a materialist universe is it even possible to define a greatest good? For Epicurus I think that it's a functional guide as described in the Canon. But I'm wide open to correction on the issue!
Another thing to consider when discussing how many hours of sleep are necessary is to clarify whether you're talking about time in bed or time actually asleep. It's not unusual to be awake for ten percent (give or take depending on age and other factors) of the hours in bed. Much of this time is such short interruptions that you're barely, or not, aware of it, though it also includes getting up to use the bathroom and falling right back to sleep &c.
I can't think of any Epicurean references offhand, but as I recall Marcus Aurelius wrote a passage about dragging his butt out of bed in the morning. Surely other ancient writers addressed sleep as well in some fashion?
There's also a matter of degree. For instance there are times when I've just powered through situations, whereas if I had allowed myself to be more aware of my Feelings I might have prevented future increasing stress and disease. (These situations occurred before I was aware of EP and was operating more from my Christian upbringing.) In my experience, situations which lead to chronic pain (mental or physical) tend to begin very gradually and develop over time. So it's always important to be aware of pleasure and pain in making choices and avoidances.
I also agree that it's possible to try to paper over pain with pleasure, with detrimental results. Responding to pain and pursuing pleasure should both be done prudently. And, yes, sometimes it's effective to choose something painful in order to obtain a greater pleasure.
However in response to the original question about the motivation to pursue pleasure or avoid pain, I don't see these as the same. The only Feelings are pleasure and pain, and absence of pain is therefore equivalent to pleasure. But I see the motivation to pursue pleasure as multi-faceted, as is the motivation to avoid pain. And I see the motivation to pursue pleasure as different from the motivation to avoid pain. To me this is an important distinction.
But thinking further, how important is the distinction? If a baby or an animal has an "instinct" toward pleasure and away from pain, are we as adults any different? We still have that "instinct". The difference is that we override our instinct due to other motivations. On the instinctual level of the organism the "motivations" might be the same. But on the conscious, thinking level I think the motivations come from and/or lead to a mindset over time. In this way they are different, and lead to different results.
Generally speaking, for me the motivation to pursue pleasure is "positive" whereas the motivation to remove pain is "negative". Focusing on the positive leads to a far more pleasant life and greater agency than focusing on the negative, and I find that over time that which I focus on tends to gain even more of my focus. The example of "don't think about an elephant" is pertinent, as this makes you think about an elephant.
If we start with the uncomfortable feelings of mental pain and then ask how to remove them, then we might arrive at a list of possible ways to remove the pain...one option of which is to seek the pleasure of friendship.
Once we have determined that this is the best option to remove the pain of loneliness, then we must switch to a "pleasure optimising" goal...which would answer the question: "How can I best find the pleasure of friends?"
This seeking of pleasure will then lead to more and better options for ending the mental pain of loneliness.
This quote is a good illustration of how the process works: it's important to be aware of our pain so that we can address it. Both pleasure and pain are guides. This works for loneliness, stress, sickness, hunger, overeating, overstimulation, anger, sleepiness &c. I've been faced at times (as I imagine many of us have) with lengthy periods of overwhelming stress, chronic illness and the like. Trying to remove the pain always causes me to focus even more on the pain, whereas acknowledging the pain and pursuing pleasure has led me to much better outcomes. Often it might be just taking "baby steps" of agency, little nibbles of pleasure leading toward a larger meal.
As I age it becomes evident that the pains in life will increase. Bodily aches and pains, losing friends and family, loved ones suffering, changes in the world.... With this in mind it's interesting to ponder that some studies have documented people's happiness increasing as they age. For me, the more that I live through, the more understanding I have that pursuing pleasure and being grateful for this random existence is really the only way to live.
The short answer: No, the motivation to pursue pleasure is not the same as the motivation to remove pain.
Quote from ScottBuddhism, which has been a long time influence in my life, has "suffering" as a seminal concept, as we all know. And would it be any surprise then that compassion is likewise a Buddhist primary motif, which it is, especially from the Dalai Lama and other Mahayana versions, but to greater or lesser extent it pops up in most of the strands of Buddhism. Suffering is also a big deal in Christianity.
That's an astute observation Scott . In both of these religions suffering seems to be something integral to life: "original sin" and "life is suffering", to put it a little glibly. On the other hand Epicurus treats suffering as a consequence of superstition and false beliefs. If you can rid yourself of those, then pain is something that you can handle, even to the degree that you make daily choices as to whether accepting a given pain will bring you a balance of pleasure.
This becomes pretty clear by studying the PDs. The first four are foundational, but the others continue to develop these ideas. It really is a positive philosophy.
At least from the chart in the Wikipedia link, it appears that the initial propositions are facts and conclusions are derived from there. That's what I was referring to, although I haven't had a chance to read the whole thing either.
First, I have no background in logic or argumentation either. But from the chart, this does look similar to how I understand Epicurean-ish reasoning. Interesting!
But that too begs the question between whether there is any "natural" connection between words and perceptions, and for that we might have to call in Godfrey and Don on visualization issues
Without any specific cites on hand, I would just speculate that the most "natural" connection between words and perceptions comes from the language and the environment that a person is exposed to in the womb and in infancy.
She seems to me to be a promoter as well as a philosopher, even if some of us don't accept all of her approach.
Catherine Wilson seems to be a dedicated Epicurean.
Kaloysyni, here are some notes from the beginning of the book, all based on one short passage that I had highlighted when I read the book some time ago:
Page 15
Philodemus follows Epicurus' general theory of pleasure. However by the 1st century BCE the nature of pleasure was debated both inside and outside of the school and Philodemus responded accordingly. One subject of controversy regards the definition of the moral end both as pleasure and as the absence of pain.
- It's counterintuitive that the highest pleasure is absence of pain.
- Pleasure having several distinct aspects may conflict with the presumed unity of the supreme good.
- Some first generation Epicureans held that aponia is not a part of the moral end.
- (from footnote: Demetrius Laco, a teacher of Philodemus, insists that Epicurus considers the telos, pleasure, as the removal of pain)
- Zeno and Philodemus, his student, interpret both absence of physical pain (aponia) and absence of mental suffering (ataraxia) as being in the Canon and as parts of the highest good.
(My thoughts:
- virtue has several aspects as well [the cardinal virtues] so similarly could not be the telos under the unity argument [re the telos argument among schools]
- how do you recognize that you are acting virtuously? Through reason or by experiencing pleasure? [re the telos argument among schools]
- absence of pain = pleasure by definition. Could another way to look at it be that absence of pain produces pleasure?)
This probably belongs in another thread and I hesitate to even post this, but in any case it doesn't do her argument justice. She continues to develop this for a couple of pages. My apologies: I'm realizing that trying to put my highlights in a useful form is a project that wouldn't do the book justice and in any case is beyond what I can tackle at the moment. But the book is definitely worth reading. Just looking through it makes me wish that I had the time to re-read it! As Don said, "so many books, so little time!"
If nothing else, this thread is a good example of why it's important to fully understand a philosophy (say, EP) on its own terms before dipping one's toe into comparisons 
That sounds like a good plan! In reviewing my highlighting in her book, it touches on quite a bit of ground. For example just in my first couple of highlights she touched on the pleasure/absence of pain controversy, which got me thinking about some of the issues involved in that debate. I don't recall if she goes in depth into that issue or not, but I'm getting the sense that there are endless topics for discussion in the book.
I think that's one reason why I remember so little of it other than general ideas. As you suggest Don you might be better served to begin with the original text and then dig into secondary discussion of it....
Not to make this chart idea even more complicated, but it seems as if it would need a time element as well. What major form(s) of Indian Buddhism was active at the time of the ancient Greeks v what major forms are currently available to Westerners.
