Posts by Godfrey

Both Philodemus' On Property Mangaement and the Buddhist tenet of right livelihood offer a framework for thinking about work. Philodemus I believe addresses proper ways for the philosopher to deal with money (broadly speaking), while Buddhist right livelihood might be a bit "idealist" for a proper Epicurean. However they both can provide food for thought.

Isychos one thing that strikes me from your post is your statement that you've worked at various jobs in various industries. This has two implications from my perspective: you've got a range of experience that you can draw from and build on, and you're not pinned down to one career path which you may have come to dislike. So there seems to be a great degree of freedom available to you in how you choose to "earn a living." If so, take advantage of that and think creatively from the big picture down to the details regarding in what ways you might fashion the most enjoyable life for yourself.

Also keep in mind that if indeed you do have a great degree of choice, that can be an obstacle by itself in that it can be overwhelming. So approach your working life (and overall life) as a process: using the Canon and a healthy amount of reasoning, decide on what you wish to pursue and give it your all. But treat that as a starting point and keep evaluating as you go along so you can "course correct" as necessary. You don't necessarily have to make epic changes; sometimes pleasure is found in the details. Part of living as an Epicurean and following the Canon is always being aware of our sensations, preconceptions and feelings and responding appropriately to what is presented to us. To stop doing this and become attached to a fixed idea of your life is to stop being an Epicurean, even to stop living in some ways.

I spent many years on a career path that eventually became oppressive. I ended up leaving a job that I'd been at for nine years to dive into the great unknown. Not too long after, an opportunity came along which led to a fresh outlook and turned into an enjoyable new career. I never would have the opportunity if I hadn't previously addressed my fears and left my job. It was possibly the hardest thing that I've ever done, but well worth it. At the time I didn't know about Epicurus, but in retrospect what I did was put aside my fixed opinions and follow the Canon. Who knew?

I think Bryan and Elayne are saying the same thing, but I don't want to put words in their mouths and would like to read their comments. I do have a comment on the practical detail of Bryan's post however.

Quote from Bryan

Full physical contentment is naturally and frequently achieved when we have the natural and necessary accommodations of food and shelter.

Quote from Bryan

Yet full mental contentment can be achieved just as naturally and frequently as full bodily contentment -- by the very realization of the simple ease of obtaining bodily contentment and then fostering gratitude and a full appreciation for your success in doing so.

To me, these quotes are overly simplified (maybe intentionally?). I presume (correct me if I'm wrong) that most of us reading this have adequate food and shelter yet many of us have physical/medical issues that prevent full physical pleasure. And mental pleasures and pains have a major influence on physical well-being which may be either positive or negative. As a material body and soul, each individual has intricately intertwined mental and physical needs, desires, fears and pleasures which contribute to full contentment. The classic example is, of course, Epicurus feeling the fullness of pleasure while dying from strangury. But I think it's far more common for a person's mental distress to cause pain in the body despite adequate food and shelter.

Gratitude is a powerful tool, but a person must also apply the Canon and reason to their mental distress(es). Epicurus's extant writings show how this is done for the fears of the gods and death. I suspect that many other issues were dealt with through the use of frank speech in ancient Epicurean communities, although I'm not aware of any extant documentation.

Before I clicked on the title to read this thread, not knowing it was a poll, I gave a bit of thought to how I would describe pleasure as a characteristic of an Epicurean. For what it's worth, I came up with "consciously pursues choices and avoidances in order to live a life of maximum pleasure."

That's pretty unwieldy. I think that these two quotes are an excellent starting point:

Quote from Don

Using pleasure and pain "to steer your own little boat" towards the most pleasurable life is the goal.

Quote from Cassius

Even today it might be a lot more intellectually helpful to say that we "follow Venus" rather than "follow pleasure."

Here are some passages from Tsouna's The Ethics of Philodemus (pages 38-40 in the Kindle version):

"Like the vices, the emotions consist of cognitive and non-cognitive or extra-cognitive elements. This applies to all kinds of emotions, healthy or destructive, passionate as well as mild. Assuming that they all comprise desires, and that Epicurus classifies desires into natural and empty according to the kinds of beliefs on which they depend (KD 29), we may infer that he would classify emotions in a similar manner. In any event, Philodemus suggests that, e.g., anger and the fear of death belong to the category of unnatural or empty emotions, since both are related to empty (i.e., both false and harmful) beliefs or presumptions about their objects. What kinds of empty beliefs and judgements are involved in harmful emotions? Philodemus’ analyses of anger and the fear of death might suggest that he concentrates on the issues of whether there is evil at hand and whether one reacts in an appropriate manner..."

"Philodemus says that all emotions, including anger, are ‘consequent upon our own entertainment of false opinion’ (ψυδοδοξ[ίαν]: De ir. VI. 14–15); in other words, upon empty beliefs. In the case of anger, such beliefs chiefly concern the intentions of the offender, the magnitude of the offence, and the value and appropriateness of revenge."

In the chapter on anger she refers to "orge" and "thymos" which she interprets as natural and empty anger. It's a bit confusing though, since apparently Philodemus and his rivals had opposite definitions of the two terms. Possibly examining the original Greek meaning of these two words would provide more to chew on?

Personally I'm not familiar with the idea of first principles and the idea as described by Elayne seems to me to be quite useful. I'd be grateful for any elaboration!

It seems to me that the twelve assertions listed above are all subservient to the principle "we live in a material universe that has provided no evidence of the supernatural or of an afterlife." As a layman I can't say whether or not any one of the twelve principles is correct, but I do think that they are all subject to clarification due to modern physics. But if one or many of these principles is proven to be false, the only thing of importance to me is whether or not that disproves the principle that I've stated. If that principle is disproved then I need to rethink my approach to life!

I probably have a tendency toward oversimplification, but this first principle (if it is correctly called that) brings me more pleasure than trying to comprehend and verify the twelve principles.

Long before I heard of Epicurus I used to make lists of pros and cons when analyzing life decisions. The exercise was useful, but I found that I sometimes overrode the results based on my "gut" feeling. In fact, my gut was actually the last thing to check when doing such an analysis.

I still see such an exercise as useful, although I can't even recall the last time I did it, but now I would be more wide open to exploring my feelings before, during and after the process. Leading with the feelings in considering options often leads to a previously unimagined and ultimately more fulfilling conclusion than is available with a purely "logical" analysis. That's where I stand on the place of "logic and reason."

Good clarification Cassius!

Thinking about "like-minded in philosophy," it occurs to me that what we often see in public discourse are single issues excised from an overall philosophy. They do come from overall philosophies or world views which may or may not be evident, and often several single issues seem to align in a predictable way. Until something happens to elucidate an unexpected world view that drives the single issues.

EP obviously has a clear overall approach and world view. Since there seems to be a fairly persistent urge to apply EP on a societal level (which could actually have some "utility," if you'll pardon my word choice ) I'm suggesting that we could be well served in describing how the overall approach of EP is beneficial to society rather than attempting to align it with specific issues as Wilson does, or in trying to update and expand it per the utilitarians.

Don I got interested in anger in a roundabout way. There's an unexplored aspect of Wilson's article, which is her apparent urge to define an Epicurean political philosophy (an urge shared by utilitarians and others it would seem). I've been giving a little bit of thought (not enough yet to start a thread) to a response to that urge. Since EP is based on individual interactions with the world through the pursuit of pleasure and the Canon, I think that the consensus here is that there is no specific Epicurean political philosophy: instead it's totally individual. It seems, though, that there is a way that an individual Epicurean approaches life that would inform or influence how an Epicurean might engage in political thought and discussion and that this would not lead to any particular positions on specific issues. It might be instructive to examine the PDs on justice, the lives of the Torquati, Atticus, Caesar and, importantly, righteous anger in this regard. But it could also be a can of worms and something that isn't appropriate to discuss on this forum.... However looking at the Epicurean approach to anger, including righteous anger, might be of some interest in this regard.

Addiction is desire, not pleasure or pain. Thinking of or satisfying a desire results in pleasure or pain.

Don that's interesting that you mention anger in this context; I've been starting to think about it in light of current events and I'm curious what Epicurean writings have to say about it, particularly righteous anger. I can't think of any offhand except maybe Philodemus, who I haven't read.

Quote from Cassius

In saying that, do you think that most of your friends with whom you might be discussing that would know what it means to "keep logic/reason subservient?" If they were to ask "what do you mean?" what would you say?

I would say to start and end with observations. Logic can help to evaluate observations, but for practical real world use logic must be verified through observations. Observations coming from the senses, feelings and pattern recognition.

Could this "premise" or "starting point" in some cases be a prolepsis?

I would say to prioritize the Canon and to keep logic/reason subservient. Begin with observations, apply logic/reason as appropriate, check the conclusions with observations, rinse and repeat. I might need to clarify what the Canon is; I probably would say observations and feelings or be more specific depending on the situation.

I see that I was sloppy in my wording!

The Canon and choices and avoidances are not the point of EP but are instrumental. Being instrumental, they are necessary to maximize pleasure (unless one lives a charmed life) with pleasure being the goal. To my understanding if you remove the opportunity to choose, you remove the opportunity to maximize pleasure. Elayne you're correct that this isn't what is spelled out in PD.

Regarding the example of buying a condo: this may reduce the opportunity for choice, but in no way eliminates it. Even after making the purchase there can be continual evaluation as to what might bring the most pleasure or pain: sell it for a profit and buy a more pleasant home, keep it to avoid the pain of moving, remodel it to increase pleasure, sell it because of a more pleasant job opportunity elsewhere, etc etc.

Quote

Without the Canon - the use of one's senses, reactions, and prolepses - there can be no application of Epicurean philosophy in one's life. There is no choice and avoidance. The is no way to determine if you are or are headed in the direction of living a pleasurable life.

This quote of Don's seems like a good summary to me. It addresses hypotheticals and also provides grounds for evaluating a life of "sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll."

Though I can't comment on the Greek, I find this a very refreshing translation! Very down to earth in terms of gods and such.

To the extent that this forum is social media, Epicurus would definitely use a smartphone/tablet/computer.

I agree with Elayne's post #22 above. However the definitive term for pleasure/happiness, per the synonyms link in post #21, is actually "cock-a-hoop."

Could happiness be another name for continuous pleasure? Maybe that depends on how one defines happiness. But happiness is quite pleasant. Anyway this would make happiness a feeling and not a concept.

Playing catch-up and digressing to post #4:

Quote from Don

Our cosmos is just a piece of the infinite. So, our cosmos could be both infinite and bounded. Wrap your brain around this one: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/8897…ite-and-bounded

Infinite and bounded, I think, can only be a mathematical abstraction. In my understanding, in order to get an infinite number of atoms (or anything else) into a bounded space you would need infinite divisibility, which Epicurus discounted. Looking at the 0-1 examples in the link, the way they achieve infinity is through infinite divisibility. Epicurus may have been saying that infinite divisibility exists only in the abstract but physically is an absurdity.

Is happiness considered a "state," whereas pleasure can be considered both an "instance" or a "state?" This drifts into the territory of katastematic and kinetic pleasure....