Posts by Charles

          

http://ethicsatcbu1.blogspot.com/2015/10/felici…niz-beware.html

I came across this article a few weeks ago, and thought little of it at the time. But now it has my attention, I'll keep this short as I don't have much time before I head out for the day, but take a quick look at the graphic presented in the article and the variables below it.

What would be considered the Epicurean position on a more defined calculus such as this? While we may not endorse the formal logic & mathematics around Epicurus' time, this presents something different. As most of the variables are unitless, it still remains dependent for each individual according to his or her personal lives & dispositions.

I've done keto before. Carnivore diet is unrealistic, there are certain vitamins and minerals you need that can't be found in only meat. But with a keto diet, you have a ton of energy with a good diet with tons of variety. However, once your body goes into ketosis, you oretty much will always get tired from eating carbs, regardless if you stick to the diet.

While not to tarnish the value of academia, it has consistently been used as the meeting place of platonic pretentiousness & misrepresentation of any philosophy outside its tunnel vision.

That being said, through outreach and continuing our own Epicurean studies & pursuits we can help round up all decent people like Cicero said.

I'll try to make it to this one, provided my calendar isn't too busy in the morning.

Reminds me of the graphs that Julie mentioned, where pleasure over time can only reach a "set ceiling", and that no matter the amount of time in any given example, continues to be a non-factor. I think a part of this misunderstanding comes from the Epicurean counter-argument against fearing death, as mentioned in his letter to Menoeceus: "And therefore a right understanding that death is nothing to us makes the mortality of life enjoyable, not because it adds to it an infinite span of time, but because it takes away the craving for immortality.". Where now the standard for Epicurean philosophy is; live life pleasurably for when you die you cease to exist, it only makes perfect sense to want to extend that pleasure for the longest amount of time as possible.

But of course, in many other sources such as PD 19, and later in that same letter as you quote, Epicurus does not get hung up on pleasure with any sort of extenuating circumstance or modifier.

Garden Dweller Are you "skyl4rk" on the old Discord?

He's more of a modern revival of a hedonist/humanist. Devoutedly atheist and bashes Christianity alongside Islam, and even wrote a book about philosophers and their diets. Yet he is almost the definition of academia and many find him hard to access, also because of the short supply of extensive English translations of his works (at least from what Ive noticed).

Quote from Cassius

Life is about feeling / sensation and logic alone is worthless, but Plato through wordplay is attempting to reverse that natural priority and convince us that logic has primacy.

This reminds me of Michel Onfray's quotation about pleasure scaring people.

"Pleasure scares people. They are scared of the word and the actions, reality, and discourses around it. It either scares people or makes them hysterical. There are too many private and personal issues, too many alienating, intimate, painful, wretched, and miserable details. There are secret and hidden deficiencies. There are too many things in the way of just being, living, and enjoying. Hence, people reject the word. They produce spiteful critique that is aggressive and in bad faith or that is simply evasive. Disrespect, discredit, contempt, and disdain are all means for avoiding the subject of pleasure."

It's truly as if most today are frightened by the very word "hedonist" or the concept of living live pleasurably, instead believing that hardship is necessary and that in the long run you will be happier (they don't like to acknowledge that this means the after life we don't believe in).

I've been working on an outline of Plato's most important arguments from the text with the following rebuttal from his interlocutor, with my own notes at the bottom of each section.

Not only which pleasures are "better than others" but Plato immediately casts aside the argument that pleasure is in itself good and if we have Epicurus in mind, we can easily see the types of pleasure that Plato is grouping with even the most natural; "unnatural and unnecessary", of which his interlocutor asks,

"What do you mean, Socrates [Plato]? Do you think that any one who asserts pleasure to be the good, will tolerate the notion that some pleasures are good and others bad?"

Of course Plato then replies afterwards that this is the "old position" of pleasures and that present and cited examples "do not pierce our dull minds", including "we go on arguing all the same, like the weakest and most inexperienced reasoners?".

In the typical Socratic formula, this is only to get Protarchus to eventually end up admitting self-defeating statements so that Plato's argumentation remains superior.

That's the translation I've been reading, I have a bookmarked section from a file off of Project Gutenberg. But with everything from Gutenberg, it becomes a large wall a of text.

How ironic, since I feel confident enough to defeat the Stoic argumentation against Epicureanism, I've been wanting to move onto critiquing the more Platonist mindset that is antagonistic towards pleasure. However with anything by Plato, it is a gargantuan task to completely read it properly, much less analyze it to a great extent, but you can include me in this discussion.

Welcome azbcethananderson Glad you made an account here, it's much more active compared to the Discord.

I think those behind every popular academic philosophical book need to see this. My father's philosophy class, briefly mentions Epicurus and what he has learned aside from asking me, is that common misconception of pleasure = no pain, and that katastematic pleasures are better than kinetic. Yet nowhere in any of these circles, do I see an acknowledgement of the juxtaposition of this modern interpretation. How can pleasure = absence of pain when you are adamant about kinetic v katastematic pleasures with the latter being more important despite it relying on kinetic pleasures to begin with, ie what they believe causes pain?

This is a pretty good source to derail that criticism. So much of my time spent talking about Epicureanism to other philosophical people ends up being a kangaroo court, where I'm the defense.

Welcome JCRAGO !

I've thought about bringing discussion to the Epicurean subreddit, but the bulk of its users seem to be (like you said): spiritualists, eclecticists, and non-Epicureans, the most widely spread post is the so-called "Epicurean paradox".

It's a bit of a shame as I would like to see it flourish like r/stoicism as reddit is much more accessible compared to a great number of other sites. Maybe some integration is in order?

I consider myself to be in both, personally.

I know a wide variety of western philosophy and humanities, but I always find myself going back to India, Nepal, Bangladesh, Pakistan, etc. for the same subjects. There's always something to learn from each culture.

Hiram Its a nice piece. My personal favorite music to study Epicurean philosophy to, is the Dhrupad style developed by Zia Mohiuddin Dagar: two tanpuras and a rudra veena. I find percussion and a fast-paced tempo to be counter productive to meditating or deep thinking.

Thanks everyone for the replies.

Cassius I'll get back to you later today when Im off work. There's a ton to unpack there.