Posts by Don

I'm rethinking that, I don't see an is/ought problem here.

Living beings pursue pleasure and avoid pain.

Epicurus does, to my perspective, state this as an observation of the way things are. A fact of nature.

He is not saying we ought to follow pleasure. To my mind, he's saying we do. Living beings do. What he is doing is calling us to do this deliberately, to understand how to do what naturally comes to us in a deliberate, thoughtful, rational way instead of second-guessing or obfuscating or rationalizing (in a negative sense). If the natural goal of life is ultimately seeking pleasure, do it, lean into it, don't fight against the current, don't shake your fist at the sky, don't blame the gods, and so on. He sees no need to "prove" pleasure is the goal anymore than snow is white and fire is hot. Those analogies are important. Pleasure is the telos is akin to fire is hot. You can stick your hand in the fire and maintain it's not hot, but you're still getting burned. Likewise, you can claim to be following the path of virtue but you're still doing it because it gives you positive feelings to be doing it.

FWIW, katalepsis shows up in Diogenes Laertius:

33] By preconception they mean a sort of apprehension or a right opinion or notion, or universal idea stored in the mind ; that is, a recollection of an external object often presented,

Τὴν δὲ πρόληψιν λέγουσιν οἱονεὶ κατάληψιν ἢ δόξαν ὀρθὴν ἢ ἔννοιαν ἢ καθολικὴν νόησιν ἐναποκειμένην

I think it's hiding in other forms within the texts. Bryan pulled these out in the past, I think.

Quote from Cassius

And in fact Epicurus tells us that sometimes we should do exactly that (pursue pain), and if Epicurus had thought that it was impossible to do anything other than pursue pleasure I don't think he would have made that remark.

Quote from Don

Yes, humans can choose to undergo pain of they feel a preponderance of pleasure will ensue. That's still pursuing pleasure.

Exactly, humans can choose to undergo pain in the pursuit of pleasure. I've cited several run of the mill examples in this thread and included the quote above as a rebuttal to other points.

Quote from Cassius

I am confident that Epicurus teaches us both (1)nature programs all healthy and uncorrupted living things to pursue pleasure and avoid pain, and (2) as a result living things "should" work to constantly identify what actions are going to lead to pleasure and avoidance of pain. That "should" is what the entire program of the philosophy is all about, identifying how to do that and "why" it is important. The "should" and the "why" are essential parts of Epicurean philosophy, because it is very clearly possible "not" to follow pleasure and Epicurean philosophy as your guide.

Quote from Cassius

Maybe best summarized by saying that from my point of view, "Everyone is NOT an Epicurean." In real life we don't treat everyone as being Epicureans, and it doesn't advance the ball in any beneficial respect to say that they are.

Quite right. All living beings are not Epicureans. But every living being pursues pleasure and avoids pain.

Of course, not everyone is an Epicurean. What makes someone an Epicurean is viscerally knowing this and putting into practice the wise, prudent, conscious effort to follow the telos that Epicurus has identified. Pleasure is the telos holds. The "Is/Ought" debates wrankle me and seems needlessly "angels dancing on a pin". I haven't read deeply into that debate, but maybe I ought (pun intended).

Honestly, I don't care what phrase is used. I've seen Epicurus described as a psychological hedonist, an ethical hedonist, a hedonist. Whatever. Eventually it comes down to hammering an ancient peg into a modern hole, so it only has limited value as a description of the philosophy.

The hill I will plant my flag on is what I've laid out in my perspective:

• Epicurus clearly states, and is quoted by multiple sources, that Pleasure is The Telos/Goal/Ultimate Good
• This means every action, decision is aimed toward the pursuit of pleasure and the fleeing from pain
• This is true for all living beings
• Unique among living beings, Humans have the ability to either pursue pleasure wisely, rationally, and prudently or foolishly, haphazardly, or by chance.
• Humans can lie and obfuscate their ultimate motive for doing what they do, but drill down deep enough and they are following the path to pleasure, even if they can't bring themselves to admit to themselves or others.
• Doing something because of "duty" or "virtue" means for example that you do it because you feel it's the right thing to do ... And doing the right thing gives you a positive feeling... Which is just another way of saying "pursue pleasure and flee from pain." If they say, I couldn't live with myself if I didn't do X. That's the pursuit of pleasure.
• Yes, humans can choose to undergo pain of they feel a preponderance of pleasure will ensue. That's still pursuing pleasure.
• "Living beings pursue pleasure and flee from pain" is built into the universe. Epicurus identified this. It can't be avoided.
  • Socrates, Cicero, Plato, Aristotle, Theophrastus et al disagreed vehemently and placed something else in place of pleasure.
  • They might say people can choose to act unvirtuously but they should act virtuously. I think Epicurus dispenses with the "should" and states a thing baked into the way living beings exist.

Quote from Cassius

Quote from Todd

I've never thought this was a very strong argument.

That's very interesting. Don do you agree with that too?

I'm more receptive to the argument from infants and animals.

Quote from Todd

An infant may be free from the influences of society, but an infant is also not yet a fully developed human.

I see no reason to take for granted that we should emulate the unconscious or semi-conscious behaviors of a newborn.

An infant is fully human, just not a fully formed adult. Same with animals, they are also living beings. Epicurus' argument is that all living beings pursue pleasure and flee pain. Animals and infants have no cultural or social filter.

I also don't think we should emulate infants or children in behavior, and I don't think Epicurus was saying that. He was looking for the foundational, bedrock telos before culture corrupted that telos. Why do we do what we do? Living beings pursue pleasure and avoid pain. Once Epicurus identified the telos, he emphasized the use of reason and prudence to wisely and purposefully follow the pursuit of pleasure.

Quote from Todd

We are coming at this from different perspectives.

You seem to be looking at this (psychological hedonism) as an argument for pursuing pleasure consciously. I agree that it is not a great tool for that because it tends to make people dig in their heels and deny that they are pursuing pleasure.

I am looking at it as an accurate description of reality, in which sense I think it is very helpful.

For example, if someone tells me they are doing something for an altruistic reason, it leads me to ask, "OK, how are they really getting pleasure out of this?"

Maybe they really are a good person, and it makes them feel good to do the right thing. Or maybe there is a more nefarious motivation.

I would concur with this analysis, with emphasis added.

Quote from Cassius

Why not just say: "At birth before there is any possibility of corruption all living things pursue pleasure and avoid pain."

That seems a little milquetoast. It's true, but Pleasure Is The Goal/End/Telos seems to be fundamental truth in how nature works.

I'm not advocating for arguing with blue-faced people about their motivations. If they desire to live in anger, fear, and delusion, so be it. We can offer a way out, but we shouldn't go out of our way to antagonize the lost.

Epicurus looked from Nature's flaming ramparts and saw the cosmos as it is. Pleasure is the Goal was a declaration of The Way Things Are.

Quote from Cassius

Quote from Don

I would say they're lying to themselves because they despise the idea of pleasure.

I see your logic in that, but this is where I lose the trail of why this is a productive theory to pursue or position to take.

This is the bedrock foundation of what it means for "Pleasure is the Goal." Pleasure is THE motivating factor behind all decisions, choices, actions. The goal of Epicurean philosophy is to follow the Goal of Nature wisely and not haphazardly or to leave life to chance.

Quote from Cassius

Quote from Todd

will have to be some variation of, "I expect it to give me pleasure".

What about those who would argue til they are blue in the face that that do what they do "Because they believe it's the right thing to do, regardless of whether it gives me pleasure or not, and I know that often it won't."

I would say they're lying to themselves because they despise the idea of pleasure.

Quote from Cassius

Quote from Don

Epicurus would say, I believe, they are trying to pursue their own path to pleasure, it feels right to them in the moment.

That would be what I understand is meant by "psychological hedonism," but what statement of Epicurus would you cite to support your belief that he would say that?

I would have to dig in, but my first gut response is him stating pleasure is the telos, the goal, the summum bonum, the "that" to which everything points in the end. Not sometimes. Not should. Not in certain circumstances. You dig and question someone's decisions and actions long enough, it ends up to "I thought it would give me pleasure" it some variation on that.

Quote from Cassius

did you mean to include "should" there, as "should ultimately end up as..." Otherwise we get back into the "psychological hedonism" word play again, and I don't agree that Epicurus would say that we can't consciously choose to pursue pain, even knowing that it is not going to be pleasurable for us to do so.

I would agree that Epicurus says we can "consciously choose to pursue pain" but I don't necessarily agree about why someone would "consciously" do it. If someone is deliberately, "consciously" going to inflict pain on themselves or others, they're still doing it because it fills a need, a desire in themselves. Epicurus would say, I believe, they are trying to pursue their own path to pleasure, it feels right to them in the moment. All paths to pleasure are perceived as "good" but not all paths to pleasure should be pursued since they lead to an abundance of pain. We can "consciously" choose the pain of exercise or surgery but that pain leads to an abundance of pleasure in the end.

My possibly idiosyncratic position on Epicurean prolepsis, filtered through possibly a modern lens, is that prolepsis is the faculty that allows us to make sense of the ever-flowing flood of sense perceptions coming into our physical and mental senses. Prolepsis picks up or sorts out patterns that correspond to real world phenomena. The senses register colors, shapes, etc to the eye in a kaleidoscopic flood. Prolepsis picks out patterns and reoccurring patterns that can be worked on by reason. The flood of colors random shapes etc come first; this shape holds together, moves together, has some permanence over time - this seems significant. Then reason steps in and names it a dog (or canem or cù or whatever your culture names that shape).

Quote from Cassius

So as per our prior discussions I think you too agree Don that just like the sensations, the "prolepses" are never "opinions."

Agreed, but I believe Epicurus thought that the mind/soul could receive images/eidolon directly as a sense like taste, touch, etc. Reason then have meaning to those perceived images. That's why, according to Epicurus, we can have a prolepsis of justice and other immaterial or abstract concepts.

In the midst of these conversations, I feel the need to state for myself: modern neurobiology and psychology would appear to show the human brain doesn't work like the ancient Greeks thought. Understanding how Epicurus vs Stoics vs Skeptics thought sensation, reason, prolepsis, katalepsis, etc worked is enlightening in light of their positions, but I feel no need to accept any specific detail that doesn't hold up to modern scrutiny to consider myself an Epicurean.

Quote from Cassius

I wanted to limit prolepsis to 5-sense exposure to concrete objects

Doesn't Epicurus also include grasping concepts with the mind as a sense, too?

Quote from Todd

I think there is a simple answer to the meaning of natural/unnatural. It refers to the criterion provided by nature: the feelings.

A natural desire is one that is likely to result in net pleasure if fulfilled.

An unnatural desire is one that we only imagine as likely to produce pleasure, but in fact is likely result in net pain. Also referred to as "vain and empty". The first definition that comes up when I search "vain" is "not yielding the desired outcome; fruitless" - the desired outcome being pleasure. Empty means empty of pleasure.

Agreed. Well stated.

Quote from Cassius

So you are in the "alignment with nature's goal" camp rather than "inborn at birth" camp?

I don't know whether I'd say I'm encamped. That sounds like I'm queueing up for battle. But yeah that appears to be my current (checks watch) perspective.

Quote from Cassius

nature as "aligned with the goal of nature"

As aligned with the natural goal of seeking pleasure. The way you stated it seems more of a tautology.

Quote from Cassius

Presumably there could be something destructive inborn in us at birth that is NOT aligned with the goal of nature, thus those are two different things.

Agreed, but I'd like us to come up with examples before we plant that flag. According to Epicurus, ALL our actions, decisions, etc. ultimately end up as a pursuit of pleasure.

Quote from Cassius

Separate and apart from the necessary criteria, what does "natural" mean? Because I can see someone arguing that if it's natural, it's natural from the start and forever, just like atoms have shape, size, and weight.

As is my wont, let's consult LSJ: The word Epicurus uses is φυσικός (physikos) "natural, produced or caused by nature, inborn, native; of or concerning the order of external nature, natural, physical." So, I take that to mean a desire which is aligned with the natural order of things, in other words, a desire which aligns with the natural order of seeking pleasure. If a desire leads to pain with no accompanying pleasure (I'm thinking the desire for the pleasure of a healthy body via the pain of exercise is natural) that's an "empty/vain/corrosive" desire.

Quote from Cassius

I presume your "Yes" means you think that you don't think it is sufficient to say "the desire was present at birth

Actually my yes was responding to "something about the way we pursue it"

Good questions, Cassius . I'll circle back to those. However, I think we need to acknowledge that Epicurus didn't use natural and unnatural all the time. In the Menoikeus, he wrote:

Quote

Furthermore, on the one hand, there are the natural desires; on the other, the 'empty, fruitless, or vain ones.' And of the natural ones, on the one hand, are the necessary ones; on the other, the ones which are only natural; then, of the necessary ones: on the one hand, those necessary for eudaimonia; then, those necessary for the freedom from disturbance for the body; then those necessary for life itself.

Not natural and unnatural, but natural, "empty," and necessary. He didn't even use unnecessary in that text.

If course. PD29 does use the familiar categories:

Among desires, some are natural and necessary, some are natural and unnecessary, and some are unnatural and unnecessary (arising instead from groundless opinion).

And VS20 as it appears in the manuscript:

Of the desires, on the one hand, there are the natural and necessary; then the natural ones and the not necessary ones; then the not natural and not necessary arising from empty belief.

MFS's recently posted translation of Oinoanda include:

[for us to show] which of the desires are natural, and which are vain.

Of the desires some are vain, others nat-

Now, those that are natural seek after such things as are [necessary] for our nature’s enjoyment, [while those that are vain] …

Yes, I'm picking nits but they're nits that deserve picking.

Quote from Cassius

Does that mean that the true defining criteria of what should be classified as natural or unnatural is not whether the desire in question is with us at birth, but something about the way we pursue it?

Yes. (Added: something about the way we pursue it to clarify a question noted by Cassius below)

Maybe it's specificity. The desire for food and drink is natural and necessary and leads to pleasure. The desire for occasional variety or novelty in food and drink is natural but unnecessary and maintains pleasure. The desire for "an endless string of drinking parties and festivals" is unnatural and unnecessary does not lead to pleasure in the end but rather leads ultimately to more pain than pleasure.

I would go so far as to say the desire for an occasional drinking party or festival is a natural but unnecessary desire. However. I find it interesting that Epicurus uses the word πότος (potos) and not συμπόσιον (symposion) "symposium, drinking-party." He wrote a book or dialogue entitled Symposium in which he wrote "Even when drunk, the wise one will not talk nonsense or act silly." So, Epicurus didn't seem to oppose drinking wine or attending drinking-parties. There seems to be a distinction between πότος and συμπόσιον, possibly with the difference being one of emphasis on drinking versus conviviality.

A κῶμος is "a village festival: a revel, carousal, merry-making, Latin: comissatio." They seem to have involved crowned revelers parading the streets, bearing torches, singing, dancing, and "playing frolics."

Note that he doesn't say you can't attend a drinking party or take part in village festivals! He's saying life shouldn't be an "endless string" of them (οὐ συνείροντες "not stringing together"). That's going to lead to more pain than pleasure in the end.

That might not hold up in every natural/unnatural desire situation, but I would be interested to see if others hold up under this paradigm.

And just to remind everyone: natural/unnatural & necessary/unnecessary refers to desires and not pleasure. This reminder is as much for myself as the the thread.