Posts by Godfrey

Quote

PD3: “The removal of all pain is the limit of the magnitude of pleasures. Wherever pleasure is present, as long as it is there, pain or distress or their combination is absent. PD4: Pain does not last continuously in the flesh: when acute it is there for a very short time, while the pain which just exceeds the pleasure in the flesh does not persist for many days; and chronic illnesses contain an excess of pleasure in the flesh over pain.” Long and Sedley translation

Exercise: focus on pleasurable sensations, thoughts, feelings and actions and, later, think about what happened to your mental and physical pains.

Notes: Quote from Don from (RE: Practical exercises: PD2 “I sometimes have a hard time accepting PD4. Theoretically, yes. Practically? I reach for Tylenol when I have a headache! A chronic, painful condition? That's going to be hard... But maybe PD4 gives us a goal?”

For me, PD4 becomes becomes clearer when not separated from PD3. In this context, I think it's appropriate to use the same exercise for both PD3 and PD4 as they are basically two sides of the same coin.

From Cicero’s On Ends, 1.37-39 (with omissions): "Thus when hunger and thirst have been removed by food and drink, the mere withdrawal of distress brings pleasure forth as its consequence. So quite generally the removal of pain causes pleasure to take its place. (7) Hence Epicurus did not accept the existence of anything in between pleasure and pain. What some people regarded as in between – the complete absence of pain – was not only pleasure but also the greatest pleasure. For anyone aware of his own condition must either have pleasure or pain. Epicurus, moreover, supposes that complete absence of pain marks the limit of the greatest pleasure, so that thereafter pleasure can be varied and differentiated but not increased and expanded." Long and Sedley translation, The Hellenistic Philosophers p. 174-5.

Is the act of eating a pleasure or a removal of a pain? As far as I can see it doesn’t matter, since the two are the same. In answer to Don’s question above, PD4 isn’t saying “don’t reach for that Tylenol!” Ingesting that Tylenol is going to lead to a pleasure, and likewise a removal of a pain. So is bringing to mind pleasant memories, enjoying some music or a spectacular sunset. More important than whether something is a pleasure or removal of a pain, at least for me, is “being aware of your own condition.” That way, you can make choices and avoidances proper to your specific situation. The exercise I’m proposing here and for PD3 is simply one method of practicing this awareness of your own condition.

Also regarding Don’s question: I think that PD3 is actually what represents a (the!) goal, not PD4. Practically speaking, I think that we pursue pleasure in the realm of individual, sequential choices and avoidances and that PD4 is addressing this while the removal of all pain in PD3 is a pleasantly abstract ideal. This jumps out to me (maybe erroneously?) when the two PDs are combined. More challenging for me is “Wherever pleasure is present, as long as it is there, pain or distress or their combination is absent.” That’s something else to examine empirically in this exercise.

To me, there should be better words for frugality and tranquility, based on previous forum discussions. I understand what you're saying though, Don .

I would add prudence, friendship and gratitude to the list. I think prudence could replace frugality....

As for PD5, prudence (or wisdom) and justice are pretty clear but I'm not sure what to make of "honor." It seems like there may be a better word for that. Maybe "honesty?" It’s obviously a good thing to live honorably, at least the way I understand it in the context of PD5. But it could be interpreted in terms of "honor culture" which I think is the opposite of what is Instrumental to pleasure.

http://psychology.iresearchnet.com/social-psychol…lture-of-honor/

Franklin referred to this list as a list of "virtues". Since the greatest good to an Epicurean is pleasure and not virtue, might this be a problem with the list?

Joshua referred to the items as "precepts;" another possibility is to call them instrumental virtues, as in instrumental to pleasure. It seems necessary to clarify this in order to avoid any confusion with Stoicism and the like. Offhand it seems like PD5 would be a guide, probably other doctrines as well. Also DeWitt has a chapter on The New Virtues although to me it's just a start and needs further thought.

This list would definitely require a re-do for an Epicurean! Not just the descriptions but many of the headings, the ones that jump out to me being at least: frugality, industry, tranquility and chastity.

An interesting idea though and one that wouldn't have occurred to me as I tend to have a more loosey goosey approach to life

Quote

PD3: "The removal of all pain is the limit of the magnitude of pleasures. Wherever pleasure is present, as long as it is there, pain or distress or their combination is absent." (Long and Sedley translation)

Exercise: as you go about your day, focus on pleasurable sensations, thoughts, feelings and actions and, later, think about what happened to your mental and physical pains while you were focused on pleasure.

Notes: Think about the difficulty of removing all pains, especially as you get older and physical pains increase! The mere act of focusing on pains increases them. Instead, focusing on pleasure can be a therapeutic practice when you are in times of pain and stress. Further, the choice and avoidance of pleasures and pains is the basis of Epicurean ethics.

In this PD Epicurus is not only refuting the argument that pleasure is limitless and insatiable, but pointing the way to the best life.

For additional discussion on PD3: Philebus - Plato's Arguments Against Pleasure and Epicurean Responses

PD4 is a challenge considering the modern ability to prolong life in painful circumstances. It would be good to start an exercise thread for that; if nobody else does, I'll give it a shot in a week or two.

Cassius I was thinking of the PROCESS of dying, a la Epicurus. Absolutely there's nothing to enjoy once we're dead! As far as thinking about death goes, to me that would only apply to thinking about a good death... I can't imagine finding pleasure in visualizing being eaten by a tiger. That's why I clarified that I think the first version of the exercise that I proposed is more appropriate than the second version.

Quote from Don

the practice of living well/nobly/beautifully (καλώς) and (the practice of) dying well/nobly/beautifully (καλώς) are the same.

Yes Don this is exactly what I had in mind; good cite!

Don thanks for adding that link! It's nice to have related discussions close at hand.

After some further thought I think that the first version of this exercise, visualizing dying well, is both the most useful and the most Epicurean (as is often the case). At least for me, it reinforces the understanding that if we can find pleasure even in death, we can certainly find pleasure in each moment of living.

This may belong in another thread, but it's also pertinent here:

The evolutionary origin of near-death experiences

Quote

PD2: Death is nothing to us; for what has disintegrated lacks awareness, and what lacks awareness is nothing to us. (Peter Saint-Andre translation)

Exercise: visualize your death in detail: physical feelings, surroundings, smells, sounds, mental state, thoughts. Make it personal, not abstract.

Notes: Two ways of doing this are:

- to visualize dying well

- to visualize random ways in which you might die.

Either way, be aware of the feelings this stimulates in you as to how you should live your life and how you define pleasure for yourself in this context.

NB: Do NOT do this exercise if you are feeling any symptoms of depression.

Not knowing Greek, I'm focused on "but only for his correction." A related sentiment might be:

VS74: "In a scholarly debate, he who loses gains more because he has learned something."

There has been some discussion lately as to “practice,” “therapy” or “exercises” in Epicurean philosophy, and this topic comes up regularly. My guess is that, in antiquity, this was accomplished through personal instruction and daily interaction in the garden. Lacking such a framework today, I’m posting this as a first pass at an alternative use of the Principle Doctrines as a series of practical or therapeutic exercises, not theoretical exercises, starting with PD1.

Quote

PD1: The blessed and incorruptible being has no troubles itself nor causes trouble for others; therefore it is not affected by anger or favor, for such things signify weakness. (my rendition)

Exercise: during the day, think about and emulate these paragons of Epicurean pleasure and visualize how you would live as a god among men. Specifically, be mindful of times when you are being affected by anger or favor. Experience these conditions, reflect without judgment, and carry on.

Notes: The original intent of this PD, to my understanding, was to describe and dispel the fear of the gods. This exercise is for those who are already cured of this malady, and is simply to practice the “idealist” conception of the gods. The “realist” conception of the gods is valid and important but, to me, is in the “theoretical” realm.

There is a discussion here about the words “blessed and incorruptible,” which are often translated as blessed and “immortal” or “imperishable.”

This exercise sounds like it was written by Captain Obvious, but I’m noticing that I’m affected much more than I expected and particularly relating to minor annoyances. Also the anger and favors sometimes are aroused from others, sometimes from within me.

Does this exercise eventually lead toward a state of pleasant equanimity from which to experience further varieties of pleasure?

Excellent episode

Marco something that I would add is to be sensitive to the context of your conversations with friends. Are they complaining to you, or are you watching them struggle and they are not asking for advice, or are they asking for advice, or are you having a philosophical discussion? I personally would try to listen well and to keep my comments very specific to the situation. Also my conversations with them probably would be quite different depending on their familiarity with, interest in, and agreement with Epicurean philosophy.

Not that I'm a great example of this but often I think it's most effective to do your best to "live like a god among men"; then you will provide an example for your friends to respond to as they choose. Hopefully to the benefit of you all!

Didn't he consider all sensations to be movements of atoms? And his descriptions of vision, dreams and knowledge of the gods are as images formed of groups of atoms. Both of these would seem to me to make him a nominalist.

As for knowledge, as I recall there was a discussion a while back debating what the Epicurean theory of memory was. Didn't memory, too, involve accessing images (composed of atoms) in some way?

So as far as I can tell he went to great lengths to explain everything in terms of atoms and void, which I interpret as nominalism. However I'm not familiar with the finer points of nominalism so I could easily be missing something!

My impression from the podcast was that Plato was saying that we're only just to avoid negative consequences and that injustice is more advantageous. The purpose of the ring (the ring of Gyges) is to avoid detection, to which PD35 seems to me to be a direct response:

It is impossible to be confident that you will escape detection when secretly doing something contrary to an agreement to not harm one another or be harmed, even if currently you do so countless times; for until your death you will be uncertain that you have escaped detection. PD35

PD34 and PD17 are also related to this, but PD35 seems directly tied to the ring problem.

PD34: Injustice is not bad in itself, but only because of the fear caused by a suspicion that you will not avoid those who are appointed to punish wrongdoing.

PD17: One who acts aright is utterly steady and serene, whereas one who goes astray is full of trouble and confusion.

This afternoon I was listening to a podcast in which the Plato scholar Jacob Howland was being interviewed. At one point he brought up the ring myth from Plato's Republic. The basic idea is, as I got it, is that people are such that if any of us had an invisibility ring and hence could do whatever we wanted without being caught, we would commit numerous injustices. Although of course it wasn't mentioned in the podcast, it immediately brought to mind this principal doctrine as yet another answer to Plato.

At another point Howland mentioned that all-knowing gods were invented to solve this problem, and part of the rationale behind the totalitarian regime of the Republic is to create a society with no privacy in order to eliminate injustices committed in this way. Howland, to his credit, immediately pointed out the irony of that! He also pointed out that many totalitarians throughout history have referred to the Republic as a working manual. Further, the thinking was (and still is!) that if somebody is not afraid of, or does not believe in, all-knowing gods, then they will commit injustice.

This serves as yet another illustration of the stakes of the conflict between Epicurus and the Platonists. It's also an illustration of the optimism of Epicurus, although many see materialist philosophy as leading to nihilism and hopelessness!

It is impossible to be confident that you will escape detection when secretly doing something contrary to an agreement to not harm one another or be harmed, even if currently you do so countless times; for until your death you will be uncertain that you have escaped detection.

(Peter Saint-Andre translation)

Epicurus appears to have had a very advanced sense of fashion.