Posts by Godfrey

Laurie Anderson has a lyric to the effect that when her father died, it was if a whole library burned down.

From Google:

PLEASURE: a feeling of happy satisfaction and enjoyment.

HAPPY: feeling or showing pleasure or contentment.

I like the circularity of these two definitions. It seems accurate to me.

TRANQUILITY: calm.

Tranquility is something valuable for an Epicurean to strive for. However it is a tool, not a goal. Tranquility allows access to subtleties of sensation, prolepses and feelings, which can lead one to greater wisdom.

MEANING

“They say also that there are two ideas of happiness, complete happiness, such as belongs to a god, which admits of no increase, and the happiness which is concerned with the addition and subtraction of pleasures.” Sayings About the Wise Man, Bailey translation

What exactly is godlike happiness and how does a person achieve it? Could it be that "meaningful" pleasures and "general" pleasures are two types of pleasure equal to these two types of happiness in the above quote? I think that we’ve determined pretty conclusively that pleasure is pleasure. But lately I’ve been trying to dig deeper into how best to pursue pleasure as my primary goal, and I’m noticing that some pleasures fill my cup fuller than others and that these pleasures seem to involve what I see as meaning. For me, this is a sense of understanding and connection, sometimes to the “big picture.” I realized this as I was pondering why some of the things that have motivated me in the past are no longer of interest. Comparing these past pursuits to current interests, the link seemed to be that the strongest desires and pleasures came from activities that gave/give me meaning. This seems pretty obvious. It’s also obvious that each person has things which are meaningful specifically to them, so meaning is not a prescription but something to find for oneself, using the Canon, and to act on using the Canon as well.

Part of where this is coming from is my recent condensed reading of Plato’s Republic. I was thinking about how the Physics of Epicurus has evolved into the predominantly accepted version of science, while the Canon and Ethics have largely disappeared from the general culture. Why? In propagating “noble lies,” Forms and other nonsense, religions and Platonists stole meaning from reality and marginalized any reality-based philosophy. So to compete with religion and Platonism, we need to take back meaning and place it where it belongs, which is in reality and hence in Epicurean philosophy.

This emphatically does NOT imply that there is a universal meaning: that is incompatible with EP. This refers to the meanings proposed by science, by psychology, by Victor Frankl and others who realized that meaning is individual. I’m suggesting that Epicurus recognized this, and that a major reason why his philosophy thrived for so long and so widely is that it gave people a means and a context in which to find and pursue lives of meaning on their own terms.

As a proselytizing tool, "individually meaningful pleasure" might be more compelling than "pleasure."

At the point of individually choosing which desires to prioritize is where it seems helpful to distinguish between meaningful and general pleasures. Beyond that, pleasure is only measured by the fullness of the cup.

Would this be considered higher and lower pleasures? Is that valid? Does meaning usurp pleasure as the goal in this interpretation? Would pleasures of meaning be natural and necessary pleasures as opposed to vain pleasures? No, because vain pleasures/desires cause more pain than pleasure; "general" ones don't necessarily. Isn't that distinction higher and lower pleasures? But higher and lower is determined by the individual their circumstances, not as a universal.

Caring for a parent or spouse with Alzheimer's is a duty, not a pleasure. It can involve random moments of pleasure. It can also involve love and connection, which give it meaningful pleasure. Is this meaningful pleasure a higher or more godlike pleasure than the random moments of pleasure?

Some relatives put together genealogies back in the 80s and those were really helpful in figuring out who is who. There are still a couple of mysteries, but far fewer than I expected.

I've never been able to get any traction with journalling, but drawing has long been a go-to for me. In the darkest days I found composing haiku (or something more or less resembling it) to be a great release valve. Sort of mini-journalling.

A great pleasure I've had recently is scanning old family photos (dating back to the 1870s) that have been stored in a closet for-seemingly-ever. There's a small Kondo-esque joy to it but the real pleasure has been discovering my ancestors and a bit of the lives they led. Pictures of my parents and grandparents as children, my parents in college, a "mommy and me" class picture from 1915 (who knew). That's just the beginning. And now that they're digitized they're as close as my phone and available to share with the rest of the family. The pleasure of connection.

Mine was from chocolate cake

Learning from my mistakes from a decade or so of overwhelm, I'm finding that connecting restorative activities (ideally all activities, but sometimes that just isn't feasible) to what brings me meaning provides the most bang for my buck. Sometimes things get to where it's hard to even recognize what's personally meaningful: the best solution for me is to get to a place where my mind just free-associates. Sometimes a walk, sometimes a nap, sometimes lying awake at night. Basically letting go enough and opening up enough to become aware of what my sensations, embodied cognition, and feelings are telling me. Oftentimes that is surprising and challenging.

That's a great quote Cassius! Can't get much more anti-Epicurean, and that certainly describes the thinking that I was raised with.

It's pretty horrific to contemplate as an Epicurean. A lot of blood has been shed over that idea. The mere fact of that bloodshed serves to invalidate the idea if one bathes it in the Canon.

Montaigne died the year Gassendi was born, did he influence him? I'm ignorant of Gassendi's sources. It does seem like a rich lineage.

His writing is full of quotations; I've already seen a few from Lucretius. His writing also seems to be all over the map, jumping from one topic to another in the midst of a page.

I'm not sure what path he's on; every few months I read a few pages. From what I've seen he's been labeled a Skeptic, a Stoic and an Epicurean. He may have changed throughout his life. Apparently he revised his writings from time to time: the book has passages marked A, B, and C depending on when he revised them. Interesting reading, in reasonable doses.

From Michel de Montaigne, The Complete Essays, Book 1.20. Screech translation:

Quote

All the opinions in the world reach the same point, that pleasure is our target even though they may get there by different means; otherwise we would throw them out immediately, for who would listen to anyone whose goal was to achieve for us pain and suffering?

I assume he's referring to PD 5 here:

Quote

Even in virtue our ultimate aim – no matter what they say – is pleasure. I enjoy bashing people’s ears with that word which runs so strongly counter to their minds. When pleasure is taken to mean the most profound delight and an exceeding happiness it is a better companion to virtue than anything else; and rightly so. Such pleasure is no less seriously pleasurable for being more lively, taut, robust and virile. We ought to have given virtue the more favourable, noble and natural name of pleasure not (as we have done) a name derived from vis (vigour).

This seems like a rather judgmental view of PD 8 as well as natural and necessary v vain pleasures:

Quote

There is that lower voluptuous pleasure which can only be said to have a disputed claim to the name not a privileged right to it. I find it less pure of lets and hindrances than virtue. Apart from having a savour which is fleeting, fluid and perishable, it has its vigils, fasts and travails, its blood and its sweat; it also has its own peculiar sufferings, which are sharp in so many different ways and accompanied by a satiety of such weight that it amounts to repentance.

The rest of Book 1.20 is a meditation on death. I'm restricting this post to pleasure!

Thanks Eugenios!

I've actually begun learning the Greek alphabet: you've got me inspired! Baby steps though

A particularly enjoying and illuminating episode!

I'm curious if somebody could find the Greek word used in the letter to Herodotus that has been translated as "seed," and share what the nuances of the original word are....

That certainly seems to me to be the case! The circumstances of our birth are preordained, but I can't see how one can say that our choices and avoidances are not up to us. That's how I read Epicurus as well, though I don't have a quote at my fingertips.

If we have no free will then what is the point of philosophy?

That's a great quote from Jefferson! I haven't, thankfully, read much Plato, but every time that I do I'm appalled by his sophomoric thinking. Jefferson expressed exactly what I would say if I had his skills, and it's reassuring to hear it from a respected historical figure such as him.

I, too, wonder what Socrates would have written. Holmes/Doyle is an excellent comparison. Not analogous but perhaps equally relevant is how what remains of the words of Epicurus have been muddled over time.

Thinking back on the path that led me to Epicurus.... From very early adulthood, Eastern philosophy somehow seemed more relevant than that of the West. After engaging with the East for a time I became frustrated with the obfuscation involved, some of it cultural and some of it inherent in the philosophies. This, and the timely popularity of the Stoics, led me to the Greeks and then to Epicurus. It wasn't until discovering Epicurus and his forebears and descendents that I realized the West actually did have a relevant philosophy.

Referring back to the piece I linked to at the beginning of this thread (which wasn't actually the point of the thread), it's truly amazing that so many of the ideas of Epicurus are generally accepted parts of modern culture. Except for his ideas relating to personal freedom and the good life. Attempting to understand the reasons for the widespread acceptance of Plato and of religion is an illuminating but exceptionally frustrating exercise to come to grips with how humanity wasted so much potential.

https://www.academia.edu/28366049/Epicu…e_Enlightenment

The author of the article linked above is of the “absence of pain” persuasion, but otherwise I found the article of interest as a general overview of the titular subject. The only reason I’m posting it here, however, is because it aroused my curiosity regarding Plato’s Republic, which has sat on my shelf unread for decades. We’ve discussed Plato’s thoughts on pleasure as described in Philebus here on the forum, but this article pointed out other topics of divergence between Epicurus and Plato, particularly these two:

1) "The purpose of the 37 volumes of his (Epicurus’s) On Nature is to free us from the fear of death and therefore from the control of priests and from the internal fears of the religion that Plato and his followers had in mind."

2) From the footnotes, regarding Plato’s use of the noble lie: "For a short and explicit statement of the ‘noble lie’, see Polybius: ‘But the quality in which the Roman commonwealth is most distinctly superior is in my opinion the nature of their religious convictions. I believe that it is the very thing which among other peoples is an object of reproach, I mean superstition, which maintains the cohesion of the Roman State. These matters are clothed in such pomp and introduced to such an extent into their public and private life that nothing could exceed it, a fact which will surprise many. My own opinion at least is that they have adopted this course for the sake of the common people. It is a course which perhaps would not have been necessary had it been possible to form a state composed of wise men, but as every multitude is fickle, full of lawless desires, unreasoned passion, and violent anger, the multitude must be held in by invisible terrors and suchlike pageantry. For this reason I think, not that the ancients acted rashly and at haphazard in introducing among the people notions concerning the gods and beliefs in the terrors of hell, but that the moderns are most rash and foolish in banishing such beliefs.’"

Could it be that Epicurus accepted the religious festivals in this civic sense? For those who hadn’t the sense to accept his philosophy and to thereby act civilly, let there be myths? Just a thought.

What follows are just some notes on the Cliffs Notes of the Republic (which has also sat on my shelf for decades, unread; I chose to read it rather than subject myself to several hundred pages of dialectic). In the following, the text in italics is paraphrasing and/or quoting from the Cliffs Notes (1963 edition). In general, I think the contrast with the thinking of Epicurus is pretty obvious and doesn’t need comment from me other than to say that my representation of Plato’s thought is grossly oversimplified. Also, I haven’t addressed the big topic of the actual state that Plato is proposing. In defense of his proposal (which to me is repugnant), I assume that he’s thinking of a city-state of 30,000 people or so. However the nature of his state certainly gave Epicurus much fuel for his contemplation of justice as an antidote to Plato’s idea.

The gods:

In educating the future leaders, they must have proper ideas of the gods. The gods can’t possibly do wrong if they are really gods, plus that would be a bad example. (Book II)

One noble lie, fear of death:

Future leaders must not be afraid of death in any way, for they must grow up to be brave enough to die for their country. Therefore they mustn’t be told any frightening stories of the afterlife and the underworld. (Book II)

Another noble lie, the afterlife:

The chief rewards of living a just and good life come after death. To prove that the soul survives the body: each thing has its own particular evil, which is the only thing that can destroy it. The evil of the soul has previously been proven to be injustice. But injustice does not destroy the soul in the way that sickness destroys the body, so the soul cannot be destroyed by anything and must be immortal. (Book X) This is why I don’t read dialectic.

The greatest rewards will come after the death of the body as the afterlife is described in the Myth of Er. Er is a brave soldier who died in battle, travels through the various realms of the afterlife, and returns to life to tell of what he has seen. This ranges from eternity in hell to rebirth in the form of one’s choosing.

Another noble lie, the Myth of the Metals:

Justice is the most important virtue as it lies at the root of all other virtues. What makes a society just is that each citizen performs only the one role in life to which he is best suited. A state, as a person, is like a structure with particular parts. If the parts don’t function well, the whole structure breaks down. (Book IV) This is the theory, not the lie.

Similar to a state, the mind of a person is made up of parts. The three parts of the mind are 1) reason, 2) emotion, 3) desire. These correspond to the three classes of the state: reason to rulers, emotions to auxiliaries, and desire to craftsmen. In a “well-ordered soul” the three parts must all perform their proper function, under the leadership of reason. (Book IV) More theory. I’m curious if the Canon of Epicurus is a direct response to this as well as to the theory of forms….

And now, the lie: The three classes of society must not meddle in each other’s business. To prevent this they should be taught to believe in a “grand and noble lie,” the Myth of the Metals, in which all citizens are created by the gods and some citizens have gold in their veins, some silver, some bronze and some iron. (Book III) These metals correspond to their place in society.

The Theory of Forms:

A Form, or quality, is something that is common to a number of different things. It does not just exist in the things which share the quality, but has an eternal and independent existence of its own. The everyday things that we perceive are merely “images;” to get to the truth we must look beyond the “images” to the things that they represent. One who is able to do that is a true philosopher. (Book V)

There are four types of “objects”: 1) Goodness, which is a Form, 2) the other Forms, 3) ordinary things, 4) shadows and images. The first two of these are objects of knowledge, the second two are objects of belief. This is then developed in the “Allegory of the Cave.” (Book VI) So reality is belief, and belief is reality….

To be a philosopher one must grasp the nature of Reality. To do this one must understand the Forms, and to do this one must learn the science of arguing logically: dialectic. (Book VII) Could this partly explain the academic bias against EP?

Pleasure:

There are three types of pleasure: 1) the pleasures of knowledge, the pleasures of success, 3) the pleasures of gain and satisfaction. Only the pleasures of the just man, the pleasures of knowledge, are real pleasures: all other pleasures are somehow unreal or “illusory.” Some pleasures are not really and truly pleasant; they only seem to be by contrast with pain or uneasiness. For instance, if you are very hungry, then eating a piece of stale bread will seem to be a pleasure.” (Book IX) This is part of a section describing the neutral state between pleasure and pain; it is specifically stated that the absence of pain is not pleasure and the absence of pleasure is not pain.

Most bodily pleasures are not truly pleasant, but the pleasures of knowledge are true pleasures. And the objects of knowledge are “real,” the objects of desire are just “images.” (Book IX)

Miscellany:

The science of astronomy did not exist in the time of Plato. For the purposes of astronomy Plato didn’t consider it necessary to observe the stars very carefully: he considered calculation more important than observation. (Book VII)

When distilled, it's hard to believe this philosophy survived at all, let alone became dominant. It must come down to the power structure and the noble lie.

This seems to confuse desire with pleasure.

From Google, desire is defined as "a strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen." Pleasure is defined as "a feeling of happy satisfaction and enjoyment."

The Epicurean pursuit of pleasure involves understanding and working with desire and could therefore be considered an exercise of free will.

Intuitively (since my skills as a logician are nonexistent) we know that this is false by observing any Stoic or Platonist, among others. Observing myself, having been reared in the yoke of the Platonic worldview, I find it quite challenging to re-orient myself to navigating life through pleasure. This doesn't necessarily mean that I'm exercising free will, but it would seem that one pursuing virtue, duty or the like would disprove the idea that pursuing pleasure is predetermined.

You're quite welcome!

Happy 20th!

Attached is an image of Epicurus which works well as wallpaper for a phone. It came from the BBC podcast with Catherine Wilson, David Sedley et al. (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/ww3cszjv4)

I hope all are well!