Posts by Godfrey

From reading the article it seems like there are interesting connections to be drawn, such as the solar plexus having an association with sight and the throat having an association with listening. I don't go in for the woo, but there are connections throughout the body that we don't normally think of and which can perhaps deepen understanding of certain pleasures and pains in some instances.

The attached paper goes beyond lines from movies to discuss two entire movies. I've watched Harold and Maude a couple of times over the years but I'm not familiar with Bad Boy Bubby. I can't remember if there are any quotable quotes in H&M or not....

The attached paper may add something to your discussion of poetry (although I haven't read it). It looks like something Joshua in particular may find interesting.

It's a chapter of a book on Georgics, and from a quick viewing it appears to touch on Epicurus' critique of Homer and Virgil's critique of Lucretius.

Coincidentally, I just read this very short story by Lucian which deals with this issue:

Swans and Amber | Electrum [The Lucian of Samosata Project]

11. Has a deep and abiding sense of awe at the material universe and our place in it.

@EricR personally I find PN03 very comforting. Over my lifetime I've spent years trying unsuccessfully to come to terms with the supernatural aspects of various religions and philosophies. It was only upon discovering EP that I felt like I'd "come home".

I certainly don't know that all is atoms and void, but the best scientific observation over centuries has failed to verify a supernatural phenomenon. If one was to be verified, then I would do my best to understand how that impacts my world view. Actually, "atoms and void" is now understood as matter/energy and void ( Martin is much more qualified to discuss this than I am!) but, as I see it it still precludes the supernatural.

As I have read some of the ancient arguments for and against atomism over the last few years, I've become increasingly unconvinced by the arguments against. For me, such arguments, at least in the west, are often more concerned with political power than the search for truth. Whether East or West, however, I find that EP is the philosophy that has most accurately anticipated the development and conclusions of modern science and thus can provide a relevant guide to living well.

Even with no supernatural, there's still no end to the mystery of life and the universe! For me, understanding the universe as atoms and void only removes the myth making. I can still enjoy the myths as myths, and often learn from them. But I find an enormous sense of wonder and joy in living in a material universe in which I am an emergent property.

Quote from Kalosyni

But when it comes to purely mental pleasures, then instead of the phrase "calculus of advantage" maybe the phrase "calculus of enjoyment"? -- Such as when deciding which hobbies to pursue, since we only have limited time.

Personally, I'd replace the word "calculus". "Consideration" maybe? Although "choices and rejections" per Don might be the most historically accurate, and it seems like the best phrase to me. It describes exactly what is being dealt with rather than trying to invent a term for the process. As per Epicurus, it should be immediately clear what our words mean.

Excellent presentation Cassius!

Christos seems to have a nice mix of modern science grounded in ancient philosophy. Do you know anything about the English translations of the books he mentioned in answer to your question? Particularly their titles and availability. It sounds like the only one currently available is the book on Jefferson, but I'm really curious to see what they cover in their textbook.

That was an out-of-left-field example of calculating something nebulous; I was thinking of it as an example of the issues that I have with "hedonic calculus". Joshua most ably listed the types of factors that I would consider. How can you calculate 6, 7, 8 or even 5? On the other hand, it's relatively straightforward to calculate highest net worth individual: just add up the dollars. To me, "hedonic calculus" implies a straightforwardness that is deceptive, and as per Joshua's list is a great example of the shortcomings of utilitarianism vs EP.

There are times when it's useful to make lists of pros and cons of various options that one is considering. One could even attempt to weight them to account for one's feelings and intuitions. There is information to be gleaned from this exercise, but often the conclusion reached by doing such an exercise is overridden by one's feelings and intuitions (at least in my experience!)

While there some situations where you can just add up hedons and dolors, often it's not that simple and almost always the "equation" needs confirmation from the Feelings. I gravitate toward the phrase "choices and rejections" as it seems to me to imply a more open-ended process than "hedonic calculus". At the same time it seems to me to be a more direct statement of the actual process. I guess the Epicureans were on to something!

For a thought experiment, how do you calculate who is the single poorest person in the world?

A problem that I have with the term "hedonic calculus" is that, to me, it implies a degree of mathematical precision in the consideration. Such precision generally doesn't exist, and tends to send people down a very mechanistic path of decision making when in fact there's a large intuitive component to these considerations.

It makes perfect sense that it started with Bentham!

Contemplating sex and filing fingernails: my latest take on PD09 is that Epicurus is saying that all pleasures are the same, they only differ in intensity, duration and location.

Not to get too sidetracked, but there are some hilarious videos online of dogs getting their nails cut... I won't post them here though

Don I need to come clean on a bias I've got: I tend to contrast Epicurus with Cicero. I'm coming to value Cicero much more based on the podcast discussions, but I still don't trust the crafty old lawyer. Knowing that, I see that I'm writing my comments about the good in order to contrast what I see to be Epicurus' point of view with what I see as Cicero sending us down a rabbit hole filled with logic games.

Your project of translating Epicurus is extremely helpful in this regard and is helping all of us hone in on what exactly Epicurus was saying, at least given the fragmentary nature of what we have to work with. For me, Epicurus' system and particularly his Canon is really the important thing for living his philosophy. In this regard, the place of pleasure within his system is the important thing; trying to figure out if one thing or another is "The Greatest Good" is extraneous to that.

Quote from Cassius

Sex is not the same as filing your fingernails.

This quote probably belongs at the top of our home page! Or perhaps in a collection of The Tao of Cassius

This is a very illuminating discussion! Thanks to both Don and Cassius .

First, I reacted to post #53 with total agreement.

Quote from Don

Quote

Quote from Cassius But we still arrive at the same point once we identify "Pleasure is the Greatest Good:" because the daily question that has to be answered moment by moment is "What next?"

You use that to wisely inform every choice and rejection in the conduct of your life. Pleasure is your North Star, the lighthouse by which to steer your little boat

Following up on this quote: whether we define pleasure as the guide (North Star, lighthouse) or greatest good, once one has understood pleasure as foundational they still need to use practical wisdom in making choices and rejections. Once you're sailing to the lighthouse, you need to make wise decisions so you don't sink your little boat, and logic games won't be of much use. I think that's the point Cassius was making and I'm pretty sure we all agree on that.

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 Don

It 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.