Posts by Godfrey

Cassius I was wondering the same thing about DeWitt's list; it seems like deriving "virtues" from the texts would involve interpretation of some sort. (Re the Skype calls, I keep hoping to make it, but an ongoing project is dragging on and Sunday mornings are my only time to catch up on sleep here on the west coast Hopefully I'll make it this week!)

Garden Dweller, life is the greatest good. That might be the closest thing to an absolute for any living thing and definitely enters into any decision. But two examples which I think illustrate the subjectivity of how to preserve life are:

- skydiving or other thrill seeking would be considered by some to be foolishly dangerous, by others to be as important as living

- for some people, living with a serious and extremely painful illness can be looked upon as another adventure or challenge and something to be endured, for others it's a reason to end life

Therefore it could be said that even the decision to live or die can be subordinate to the individual's weighing of pleasure and pain, moderated by a very large portion of prudence.

That's an excellent and incisive question Cassius.

Following my current thinking to its conclusion, the only virtue I would recognize is prudence. DeWitt lists several virtues in EAHP. The dictionary definition of virtue is "high moral standard". The definition of morality is principles of right and wrong and/or good and bad behavior. As I understand it, in a universe of atoms and void there is no objective morality. Prudence then becomes the mother of all morality as it is necessary for making good choices.

Getting from the mother to a list of children involves, it seems, subjecting various potential candidates to the Canon as well as to hedonic calculus. In order for something to pass the hedonic calculus as being worthy of being labeled a virtue, it would need to have a pleasurable result in all cases. Self preservation didn't survive this process, in my mind.

As for labeling other things as virtues, I haven't yet gone through this process as I'm just figuring it out. Which is a reason why Garden Dweller's initial question is an excellent question!

Quote

By self preservation, one might include avoiding high risk activities, seeking preventative healthcare, practing good diet and exercise, and learning ways to extend one's health and lifespan ?

Self preservation taken to its extreme might look something like Oblomovitis! On a more sensible level it would lead to "freedom from bodily pain and mental disturbance". Also, there is the consideration of intensity of pleasure v the length of pleasure: a longer life isn't necessarily better than a shorter but more pleasurable life.

To me, there's a point where pursuing good health, fitness, and keeping up with the latest health info goes from good sense to obsession, and I confess I tend to cross that line all too frequently. EP keeps reminding me to focus on enjoyment, while being aware of the hedonic calculus. My interpretation of the hedonic calculus contains a factor of self preservation, but mainly because the nature of the calculus is maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain.

So I would say self preservation isn't an Epicurean virtue, but it is quite sensible. And what it entails is entirely subjective.

Great work Joshua! You could get a side gig reading audio books.

All three voices sound great. The dramatic/Shakespearean voice is harder for me to follow.

Quote

... some initial advice with explanation of why this approach can at times be counterproductive.

Understanding the basic ideas actually IS practical: I would think and act much differently if I was focused on "avoiding pain" rather than "maximizing pleasure"!

Here's the link to Elayne's post:

On Pain, Pleasure, and Happiness Second Draft

Wynnho, your post sounds very ascetic to me. This is a value judgement on my part: what you describe may be pleasurable to you, and that is the most important thing.

The reason I mention ascetic is that many academics interpret Epicurean philosophy as being ascetic or something approaching it. But here the general feeling is that that interpretation is a gross misrepresentation of the philosophy. Elayne wrote a piece on pleasure that's posted elsewhere on this forum (I think under Articles, I'll try to find it and copy the link in this thread) which I think is a good summation of Epicurean pleasure as many of us view it.

I personally enjoy minimalism as both a lifestyle choice and a design expression, although I tend more toward Alvar Aalto than Mies van der Rohe. While Bang and Olufson has a sense of perfection, traditional Japanese design has a richness to it. And the richness, to me, is where the pleasure lies.

It sounds like you've got some great systems in place which bring you pleasure and contentment. It also sounds like you're looking to bring more joy into your life. In my life I have tended to err on the side of duty (for lack of a better word at the moment) at the expense of pleasure, and discovering this philosophy has been a godsend (pardon the expression) in terms of putting me on a better path. One of the first things that I put into practice was a hedonic calculus: in any given circumstance, project, etc., how can I get the most pleasure without causing myself a bunch of stress?

As I read your post I kept thinking of the book Joyful by Ingrid Fetell Lee. It contains a plethora of tips for bringing joy into your life. She also has a blog, I think it's called The Aesthetics of Joy. To my knowledge she's not an Epicurean, but then Epicureans don't have exclusive access to pleasure!

Also worthwhile is Hiram Crespo's book Tending the Epicurean Garden. He includes lots of ideas for a hedonic regimen which you might find useful.

Yes, that's the one! And your wording is much better.

https://www.academia.edu/26175858/Intro…ent_Materialism

This turned up in my email this morning; it may add some context to her latest book. This is the intro to a previous book of hers.

I've only had a chance to read a bit of it. A couple of notes:

- page 3: Gassendi stripped Epicurus of anti-providentialism, mortality of the soul, multiple worlds and a priori knowledge and in so doing laid the foundation for British empiricism. It sounds to me like he also laid the foundation for the destruction of the philosophy!

- page 5: "pain... is an unqualified evil". Followed by a decent description of Epicurean pleasure, except for her inclusion of the word "should". At first blush this seems to get to the heart of our disagreement with her: shoulds and unqualifieds imply Ideas, not a material universe.

Cassius, I liked Hiram's post in the most positive and encouraging way. You've created a remarkable amount of valuable content which could add a lot to the discussion. But taking that next step probably involves a lot of additional work and could be opening a can of worms; I respect your hedonic calculus in the matter!

Peter St Andre's note on his translation seems to follow Elli's thinking. I find the implication appealing but must rely on the wisdom of others in translation issues. In that regard, many thanks to Elli, Joshua and others who contribute to refining our understanding of the texts!

Quote

Donald Robertson:

That's normally a sticking point for many people, throughout history, who have found it counter-intuitive to say they would desire pleasure even at the expense of wisdom, self-awareness, or knowledge, etc. It leads to well-known dilemmas such as whether you would choose to be totally deceived/deluded about the most important things in life as long as that experience felt more pleasurable than knowing the truth.

The proper response to this comment imho is that pleasure is an inseparable part of the Canon and as such is natural wisdom. The "well known dilemmas" treat pleasure as separate from the Canon and therefore show a fundamental ignorance, willful or otherwise, of EP. An Epicurean does not "desire pleasure even at the expense of wisdom, self-awareness, or knowledge". An Epicurean employs pleasure (which is biological wisdom, self-awareness and knowledge), along with pain and a side order of reason, to determine the most important things in life.

There are stages in life, such as infancy and senility, when the important things in life are reduced to the pleasures of a full belly and a dry diaper. But that's a different discussion.

I think that, stated in this way, this is actually a useful starting point for discussion with Stoics and their ilk.

Sounds like a precursor to the Dark Ages. It's amazing how much power ideas like this acquired.

Child rearing (and old age, I'm told) is not for the faint of heart. There are profound pleasures, but whoever first said that you're only as happy as your unhappiest child was quite right.

Then again, life isn't for the faint of heart!

This link popped up in my feed recently and I just got around to reading it. It's an excerpt from a little girl's school journal in the 1930s; the portion of her journal dealing with a field trip to Notre Dame cathedral. Just (I hope) an innocent counterpoint to the discussion above.

http://blogs.getty.edu/iris/notes-fro…-dame-de-paris/

Quote

just to pick on doors, it seems to me that I have a series of mental images that cone to mind on hearing door - or most other words - so what is it about "first"?

Excellent question! Are there any words for which everyone can agree on a first mental image? This I find very puzzling, but I haven't had time to give it serious thought these last couple of days.

I was thinking that "door" is pretty straightforward, but "light" could be what you described, or a fixture on the ceiling that allows one to see things in a dark room, or a measure of weight, or a measure of intensity of color, or a subject that is easy to comprehend, etc etc...

Joshua I was basically going to the same place as you, but in a much less erudite manner

The door with light shining through is a nice image!

I'm thinking there are two issues: the issue of origin and the issue of use.

Lucretius seems to be describing origin when he speaks of the urge to communicate and debates against one person coming up with language and teaching it to others. From the origin, languages then could almost be considered like species as they would arise differently under different circumstances and continue to develop from those specific circumstances.

The issue of use is what I think Epicurus is referring to in the "first mental image" excerpt. If I may, I'd like to try to examine the subject with two specific instances to discuss, neither of which is part of the literature and both of which are contemporary to us. Question: what is your first mental image associated with

1) "door"

2) "light"

It would appear from Lucretius and from observation that there is a prolepsis of language, in terms of an innate desire to communicate and a "pencil sketch" of how to do so given our biology.

The Nietzsche excerpt, to me, does not relate to prolepseis but it useful to clarify the difference between a prolepsis and a concept. It illustrates how, for instance, "cow" becomes a concept, which I think we've determined is not a prolepsis (at least by our non academic reasoning). Similarly the Lucretius excerpts illustrate what a prolepsis could be, although I don't know that I've ever heard a prolepsis of language referred to so that could be open to discussion.

Quote

First of all, Herodotus, we must grasp the ideas attached to words, in order that we may be able to refer to them and so to judge the inferences of opinion or problems of investigation or reflection, so that we may not either leave everything uncertain and go on explaining to infinity or use words devoid of meaning.

For this purpose it is essential that the first mental image associated with each word should be regarded, and that there should be no need of explanation, if we are really to have a standard to which to refer a problem of investigation or reflection or a mental inference.

This is where it gets confusing to me, particularly in light of the recent thread on the gods and the discussion there of the words "immortal" and "incorruptible". One issue is that so much philosophy originates in languages other than English, so there's the added complexity of translation (for those of us who are primarily monolingual). Another issue more directly related to the above quote is that people seem to have conflicting first mental images of many words. So how does one burrow down to the first mental image of a given word?

Certainly glad I did catch on to him!