Posts by Godfrey

Quote from Cassius

This recalls Joshua saying in episode 95 that he does not enjoy spending too much time defining pleasure. I think that is a very good observation and it represents a goal we should have not to worry about these issues. But like Joshua also said after his first podcast, he felt like Cicero had us dancing like puppets on his arguments.

While listening to both of those statements I thought they were spot on. So just for the record,

Also the roach analogy is a good one. If your house is infested, pain. After getting rid of the roaches, pleasure. Once you're used to the roaches being gone, you now jump to the analogy of Chrysippus' hand. It's just not something that you notice, because it's as it should be. If you only focus on the roaches, after the initial pleasure passes you'll become neurotic by focusing on roaches which aren't there. So by this reasoning all pleasures come and go, and the more I think about it the more unnatural a katastematic pleasure is, unless you're a god. For a properly functioning human being it would be more of a background condition for which you experience the pleasure of gratitude from time to time.

Quote from Kalosyni

So then, this is mostly in regard to the fear of a mythical religious afterlife? Not so much as simple fear of non-existence(?) since atheism is only a limited modern movement.

To my understanding it is in regard to both religion/superstition and the fear of non-existence. Also the fear of being a rotting, worm infested corpse, buried in a claustrophobic box. Or of anything that may happen to our body after we're dead. Even worries such as what will happen to loved ones or some project that one might feel is of great importance. Do our best to live life now; once we're gone, we're gone.

PD04 seems to address 3), and I'm curious if it touches on 4) as well.... And the unlimited time issues are probably worth at least one thread of their own.

Aka "Hand Experiencing Katastematic Pleasure".

There's a book titled Greek Buddha, by Christopher Beckwith, that describes how Pyrrho spent several years with Alexander and studied the version of Buddhism existing at that time. He proposes that there may have been cross pollination between Pyrrho and the Buddhists.

I believe that DL mentions that Epicurus was an admirer of Pyrrho. If all of this was so, I can imagine that Epicurus made improvements to Pyrrho's ideas in the same way that he did to Democritus' ideas. For example, as I understand Buddhism, a goal is to eliminate desire (which is of course impossible: you really have to desire to eliminate desire in order to eliminate desire!). Epicurus came up with an elegant and more evidence based theory of the various types of desire. But this is speculation on my part and I gather that Beckwith's book is controversial.

As a technique of "Epicurean mindfulness" I sometimes focus on my current sensations, preconceptions or feelings. I may start out by focusing on a particular sensation, and then notice to my surprise that I'm aware of a preconception involving that particular experience.

Having said that, my understanding is that "meditation" for the ancient Greeks was actually more of a thought process, for example memorizing doctrines or visualizing the extent of the universe, as opposed to Buddhist or Hindu forms of meditation. It's taken me a while to buy into this, but now I think that the Greek technique is quite good for internaliziing the philosophy and increasing pleasure.

That leads to quite a different understanding than "Aristippus sets as the goal of life a constant round of active pleasures." Looks like a fruitful paper!

Some quick thoughts....

I'm not very familiar with Aristippus and his ideas. But for Epicurus it was very important to have a correct view of the gods and death, meaning a correct world view, as a central component of a life of pleasure. So I'm curious as to the world view of Aristippus was.

In another thread we've been discussing pleasure and some of the PDs. One approach to comparing the two philosophies would be to compare "a constant round of active pleasures" to pleasure as described in PD03, PD09 and PD10. For instance PD10 could be read as a direct Epicurean response to Aristippus, although I don't know if that's historically accurate.

Quote

PD10 If the things that produce the delights of those who are decadent washed away the mind's fears about astronomical phenomena and death and suffering, and furthermore if they taught us the limits of our pains and desires, then we would have no complaints against them, since they would be filled with every joy and would contain not a single pain or distress (and that's what is bad).

Looking at PD03 is tricky as it's usually mentioned as a rebuttal to Plato. But what if you look at it as a recipe for the best life, from which you can and should draw your own conclusions? If you are striving for the greatest pleasure, how could you go about it? People immediately jump to "Remove all pain! Remove all pain!" But is that really what he's saying? True, if you've reached the limit of pleasure then you won't have feelings of pain. So how do you do that? If you have pleasure in your stomach for a moment then there's no pain in your stomach for that moment. If you have peace of mind for a moment then there's no pain in your mind for that moment. Knowing this, you can strategize how to achieve the longest lasting, most complete and most sustainable experience of pleasure.

Quote

PD03 The limit of enjoyment is the removal of all pains. Wherever and for however long pleasure is present, there is neither bodily pain nor mental distress.

Don you mentioned Barrett's use of emotions.... I'm thinking that what he's calling feelings are more like what she calls affect...?

Also at one point in passing he listed desire along with some other things as emotions. If he meant that specifically then I'm curious as to the neurochemical relationship between desire and pleasure. And of course his categorization would challenge what I see as Epicurus' separation of desires and pleasure

That's what it seems like to me. And the feelings as he describes them seem to me to be pretty much what Epicurus described as feelings: guides to choices and avoidances.

It's also interesting how he makes a clear distinction between sensations and feelings. As I understand it he says feelings are critical for consciousness while sensations are not. So I wonder if he might say that death is nothing to us because when we're dead we have no feelings?

This was a very good advertisement for his book! I think I'll read it at some point to dig in to his ideas a bit more.

Required listening!

Don I haven't heard this. Just cued it up and going for a walk

Quote from Don

Hmm. I not sure PD03 is counterfactual as much as it is an unattainable goal (unless you're a god!). If a person was exclusively experiencing no pain in their body or mind anywhere, they would, by definition, be experiencing nothing but pleasure. Once that state (again only attainable by a god) is reached, pleasure cannot be "increased" but simply varied.

As I think about it more, I think of PD03 as definitional. If you reverse the order of the two sentences, he's saying that (2) if in any part of you you are experiencing pleasure, then in that part you are not experiencing pain. So (1) you would therefore reach the limit of pleasure if you are not experiencing pain in any part of your body or mind.

So he's defining the dichotomous, either/or relationship of pleasure and pain. In PD03 he only deals with accumulation or condensing, but in PD09 and PD10 he adds time, etc.

PD03 isn't an unattainable goal, I think we've all had moments of experiencing the limit. But if we were able to live constantly in that state, then we'd be like the gods!

PD03, PD09 and PD10 are all interesting in that they are providing counterfactual arguments (I think "absurdities" is too strong of a word) while at the same time adding clarity and details to those looking for it.

Epicurus, Letter to Herodotus:

Quote

37... First, Herodotus, we need to have grasped what is denoted by our words, [1] so that by referring to what they denote we can make decisions about the objects of opinion, investigation, or puzzlement and [2] so that all of these things will not remain undecided, [as they would] if we tried to give an infinitely long demonstration, and [3] so that our words will not be empty. 38. For it is necessary that we look to the primary conception corresponding to each word and that it stand in no need of demonstration, if, that is, we are going to have something to which we can refer the object of search or puzzlement and opinion.

This doesn't refer specifically to "pleasure" but to his use of words. "Pleasure" being such a central idea, however, could be understood to be covered by this passage.

Quote from Cassius

My comments are based on a presumption that Epicurus is going back and forth, as the occasion demands, using the word "pleasure" in both a high-level conceptual sense at times, but also at other times strictly as a feelings, with times when his usage almost is intersecting.

I'm not sure about Epicurus, but his opponents definitely were and eventually his followers had to. Hence our quandary.

Now I'm cross-posting... usually I'm 2 or 3 hours behind in the discussion

Quote from Cassius

Does Nature herself create a concept called "pleasure" by which we should understand ALL pleasures to be included? What would you say is the intersection between human nature and the words we use to describe it?

Nature does not create a concept called "pleasure". The end of the cascade for this question, though, leads to Scepticism. All philosophies are mental models. Epicurus proposed a mental model to describe how he perceived and understood the world, and I find that model to be the best that I've come across. His model relies on faculties of sensation, feeling and anticipations and has been built upon to form the basis of modern science. The combination of Epicurus' model and modern science, to me, is the best description that we have of the universe in which we live and how to live in this universe. The persistent lack of evidence of a providential universe indicates, to me, that "Nature" has no mental models. With this in mind, pleasure is an observed, emergent phenomenon of organic life.

It's my understanding that for clarity of discussion Epicurus was very explicit, in Greek, of the meaning of "pleasure". Over the millennia and through various languages and various intentions, that word "pleasure" has taken on a life of its own. Kind of like the word "Epicurean"

Quote from Cassius

I do think that pleasures have to be ranked so that we can intelligently choose between them. I guess I would say much the same thing about "desires." Ranking "pleasures" seems to make more sense to me because that is the method by which I would rank my "desires'' if I even thought in terms of ranking desires. My desires flow directly from my evaluation of the possible pleasures and pain, so I am not sure I see the path forward you are suggesting.

Keeping in mind that much of what we have of Epicurus comes from sources that are to some undetermined degree hostile, I'm doing the exercise of looking more closely at the texts that are generally agreed to be by Epicurus himself. And also keeping in mind that he stated that we need to be clear on what we mean by particular words. (I think I'm channeling Scalia, god forbid!)

Referring to post #61, that's why I think it's interesting to compare PD03 and PD09.

PD3 The limit of enjoyment is the removal of all pains. Wherever and for however long pleasure is present, there is neither bodily pain nor mental distress.

I think we agree that the first sentence is a refutation of the argument that pleasures have no limits. To me, the second sentence is adding specificity: if you have pleasure in your belly there is no pain in your belly. Same for your foot, and perhaps for your mind. So if all pains, throughout your body and mind, are removed, you've reached the limit of pleasure.

PD9 If every pleasure were condensed and were present at the same time and in the whole of one's nature or its primary parts, then the pleasures would never differ from one another.

I'm reading this as building on the second sentence of PD03. These acknowledge that you can have pleasure in your stomach, or your foot or your mind or wherever. If the pleasure in your foot filled your whole body and mind for one minute, it would be no different than if the pleasure in your belly filled your body and mind for one minute. So, pleasure is pleasure, which is part of a faculty of pathe.

I actually prefer the Hicks 1925 translation of PD09 as it uses "accumulate" rather than "condense". I'm not sure which is more accurate, but I find accumulate to be more illustrative.

The pleasures are not identical, and that’s where so much confusion can be sown by devious minds I'm thinking that that is a big reason why Epicurus kept pointing out that pleasure is pleasure, a faculty. Rather than argue with Platonists and Academics about what type of pleasure is good, or better or greatest, he made the distinction between pleasure and desire. This was one of his great innovations! "Everyone knows what pleasure is and pursues it, even babies and Cows. If you want to talk to me about what's greater or good-er, talk to me about desires."

Cassius, I'm suggesting that this is where the opponents won the war, in focusing on ranking pleasures instead of desires. As you know, this separation has been tickling me for a while... I'm not sure if I'm reading it correctly but it seems promising. Plus like so many of Epicurus' ideas, it seems to relate favorably to modern science. Just an added bonus

DESIRES

Quote

PD29 Among desires, some are natural and necessary, some are natural and unnecessary, and some are unnatural and unnecessary (arising instead from groundless opinion).

PD26 The desires that do not bring pain when they go unfulfilled are not necessary; indeed they are easy to reject if they are hard to achieve or if they seem to produce harm.

PD30 Among natural desires, those that do not bring pain when unfulfilled and that require intense exertion arise from groundless opinion; and such desires fail to be stamped out not by nature but because of the groundless opinions of humankind.

(LM127ff) One should keep in mind that among desires, some are natural and some are vain. Of those that are natural, some are necessary and some unnecessary. Of those that are necessary, some are necessary for happiness, some for health, and some for life itself. A correct view of these matters enables one to base every choice and avoidance upon whether it secures or upsets bodily comfort and peace of mind – the goal of a happy life.

(LMxxx) Third, keep in mind that some desires are natural whereas others are groundless [note]; that among the natural desires some are natural and necessary whereas others are merely natural; and that among the necessary desires some are necessary for happiness, some for physical health [note], and some for life itself. The steady contemplation of these facts enables you to understand everything that you accept or reject in terms of the health of the body and the serenity of the soul — since that is the goal of a completely happy life. Our every action is done so that we will not be in pain or fear. As soon as we achieve this, the soul is released from every storm, since an animal has no other need and must seek nothing else to complete the goodness of body and soul. Thus we need pleasure only when we are in pain caused by its absence; but when we are not in pain then we have no need of pleasure.

(LMxxx) Fourth, we hold that self-reliance is a great good — not so that we will always have only a few things but so that if we do not have much we will rejoice in the few things we have, firmly persuaded that those who need luxury the least enjoy it the most, and that everything natural is easily obtained whereas everything groundless is hard to get. So simple flavors bring just as much pleasure as a fancy diet if all pain from true need has been removed, and bread and water give the highest pleasure when someone in need partakes of them. Training yourself to live simply and without luxury brings you complete health, gives you endless energy to face the necessities of life, better prepares you for the occasional luxury, and makes you fearless no matter your fortune in life.

Display More