Posts by Godfrey

Quote from Scott

Buddhism, 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.

That's a lot of arches!

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!

Quote from Cassius

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:

Quote

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?)

Display More

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.

My impression is that it seems to involve a very detailed description of the consequences of a particular trait or action, such as anger. The "therapist" paints such a detailed word picture of the consequences that the "patient" learns from this as though they actually experienced it.

Am I inadvertently quoting this from a source posted above? Anyway, the extant sources are limited so "setting before the eyes" could involve more than just this, however this seems to be all that's in the sources.

This brings to mind an experience I had as a teenager: I learned to waterski by sitting in a room with a friend and listening as he talked me through each step of the process, from getting into the water to standing up. He did this on two or three occasions. His explanations were so vivid and detailed that the first time I got in the water I was able to ski as if I'd been doing it for quite a while, and continued to progress from there. I've always been amazed at how that worked! I consider that to be "setting before the eyes", although not in the Epicurean context.

Quote from Cassius

For a very obvious example, when evaluating which course of several to apply, sitting down and preparing a chart of the pluses and minus of each option.

My impression, though I could certainly be wrong, is that this isn't what Philodemus is referring to. I'm interpreting what you're describing here Cassius as a planning activity whereas as I understand it (at least in the specific context of the scrolls) is to work on improving specific shortcomings of a student.

What you're describing is certainly valid as a practice, but I don't think that's what "setting before the eyes" is referring to. It seems very specific. As I recall, it's always referred to under discussion of "therapy".

It seems too like a key part of it is a teacher or friend describing or illustrating to the one receiving therapy. It doesn't seem to be a technique for solitary meditation. Setting before the eyes would then be the act of describing or illustrating, right?

Thanks for the post Don , intriguing title!

Unfortunately this author saddles Epicurus with preaching the absence of pain, and his overall conclusion is that one needs a Platonic or religious world view for true happiness.

Quote from Scott

discussion in the EF is how to IMPLEMENT Epicurean philosophy. EP per se doesn't offer much specifics on how to do this. I have found great nuggets from Stoicism and Buddhism and many other perspectives that do.

My perspective on this has changed over time and may not be the same as other people's. I've explored adapting techniques from various other traditions and found it ultimately unsatisfying. For me, EP needs to be understood and practiced on its own terms and in some ways it is more "freewheeling" than some other traditions. The best way that I've found to do this is by studying and by applying the insights to daily living.

"Studying" can be pretty wide ranging, as suggested by this thread. I read up on the history of physics and cosmology and on modern neuroscience as well, all in books intended for lay people. One of the joys of this philosophy is that, for me, it's a gateway to so many other subjects.

As to applying to daily living... Sometimes I find pleasure by thinking about the infinite universe or by how I got here. Yesterday I was in physical pain and thought about PD04. These are methods of implementation, but for me they arise from my studies. My perspective is EP: I find that many of the things that used to perplex me no longer do. For me, this is more useful than spiritual exercises or a daily practice. But for others these things may bring great pleasure and understanding. The Feelings are our guides.

Quote from Don

I think the words "technique" or "practice" may imbue this way of counteracting behaviors in a formal teacher/student interaction with more of a "mystical" flavor than either Philodemus or I intended.

That's my impression as well and you've said it quite succinctly.

When I reviewed my highlights from the book I ended up with nine pages of text. So it's going to take a while to see if I can make something useful of it all. That might indicate that the book is worth reading

Quote

PD04: 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

Today I've been using this one myself!

And then there's his letter to Idomeneus:

Quote

On this blissful day, which is also the last of my life, I write this to you. My continual sufferings from strangury and dysentery are so great that nothing could augment them; but over against them all I set gladness of mind at the remembrance of our past conversations....

Great episode!

I just want to mention that Martin 's temperature analogy sounds a lot like homeostasis in Dopamine Nation, as Don posted about previously.

Quote from Nate

Buddhism's propositions are much closer to Epicurus' opponents than to Epicurus in any meaningful way.

Eikadistes you are much more familiar with the material than I am, but this is my take-away as well.