Posts by Don

Marcelo D. Boeri - John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation

Marcelo Boeri is a Professor of Ancient Philosophy at the Institute of Philosophy at the University of the Andes in Santiago, Chile. Born in Buenos Aires, he…

www.gf.org

https://philpeople.org/profiles/marcelo-boeri

Javier Aoiz | Universidad de Santiago de Chile - Academia.edu

Quote from Cassius

So what are the literal definitions of that word. I can't imagine Don will be satisfied unless we have three or four synonymous usages!

Ok I see the dictionary version....

Seems I remember something similar in the Torquatus discussion about analogies and extensions perhaps.

There's also the verb:

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, Σ ς, , συμμ<ε>ικτέον , συμμετρ-έω

Consider the συμ- sym- similar to the sym- in sympathy "together with (feeling "pathy")"

-metreō "measure"

So... Measuring one thing together with another, weighing against each other, judging two things together, etc.

Welcome! Χαίρε! Salve!

Quote from Godfrey

"Measuring" brings to mind the "measuring stick" (Canon). Is that more than coincidence? Is there a relation in the Greek, or is it just a quirk of the English?

I can see where you're coming from; but, unfortunately, it's just a quirk of English. The canon is κανών kanōn. Symmetrēsis does have connections to English meter.

Great call, Nate!! I don't know how that passed me by!

[130] So, all pleasure, through its nature, belongs to us as a good; however, not all are elected; and just as all pains are entirely evil by their nature, so not all are always to be shunned.It is proper when judging these things to consider what is advantageous and what is not advantageous for you; in other words, what the consequences will be. We consult the consequences of our actions; because, on the one hand, pleasure over time can lead to pain; and on the other hand, pain can lead to pleasure.

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, Σ ς, , συμμ<ε>ικτέον , συμμέτρ-ησις

"Hedonic calculus" does seem to be essentially an outdated, Benthamite Utilitarianism term, originally associated with literally counting up the dolors and hedons... which is in reality impossible, from my perspective. There is no absolute quantification of pleasure points or pain values. Choice and rejection is an art, not a science.

Maybe it *would* be better to retire that phrase. "Calculus" implies some kind of single answer to the calculation.

"Choice and rejection" is not a math problem. It's a personal decision, albeit one that can -- should -- be informed by study and/or talking with a friend, guide, or other trusted person.

Felicific calculus - Wikipedia

Here's an interesting Humanist article from 2015 by Hiram Crespo that quotes Cassius, Onfray, and others:

Whose Pleasure? Whose Pain? Applying the Hedonic Calculus to Public Policy - TheHumanist.com

“We must, therefore, pursue the things that make for happiness, seeing that when happiness is present, we have everything; but when it is absent, we do…

thehumanist.com

This timeline seems significant too:

Chronology of early Christian monasticism - Wikipedia

and this

Christian monasticism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

DeWitt posits that the early Christian monastic communities were patterned after the Epicurean Gardens in the ancient world.

I was just listening to a Bart Ehrman podcast and he brought up the Essenes in relation to a topic.

Essenes - Wikipedia

I'm not sure if DeWitt mentions them, but they were a Jewish ascetic community set off from others founded in the 2nd c. BCE.

It seems more likely to me that this would have been a model for early Christians than the Gardens, although I suppose there could have been a conflation of the two groups.

Thoughts?

Joshua 's video and Cassius 's "glass full/empty" metaphor are spot on. This is something I can never wrap my brain around. Why insist it's either/or?? By definition, if one side of the seesaw goes down, the other side goes up. By pursuing pleasure, we are, by definition, avoiding pain. As we reduce pain, we increase pleasure. "The feelings - pleasure and pain - are two." It's all a matter of focus or perspective, and sometimes one focus is helpful. Other times, the other focus is helpful.

Quote from Cassius

we never set "avoiding pain" as the primary overriding purpose of life.

For the record, I agree.

Quote from Cassius

No matter how much we think that the choice for the other person is "better," it's ultimately up to them what they choose to do.

Definitely. But that doesn't preclude the teacher from saying, "Told ya. Now, let's review what happened and how to avoid those consequences in the future."

Epicurus was not above evaluating other's choices and offering what one ought not do. He explicitly said "Therefore, whenever we say repeatedly that 'pleasure is the τέλος,' we do not say the pleasure of those who are prodigal like those who are ignorant, those who don't agree with us, or those who believe wrongly; but we mean that which neither pains the body nor troubles the mind. For it is not an endless string of drinking parties and festivals, and not taking advantage of slaves and women, nor does an extravagant table of fish and other things bring forth a sweet life but self-controlled reasoning and examining the cause of every choice and rejection and driving out the greatest number of opinions that take hold of the mind and bring confusion and trouble."

The whole idea of Epicurean teachers using frank speech to correct the actions of students and to guide them in a better direction is well documented.

Quote from Cassius

there is no magic formula by which we can say that one persons view of pleasure is absolutely preferable over another person's view of pleasure. We're all entitled to our own choices, and we reap the rewards or pay the price accordingly.

While there's no "magic formula" and each person is responsible for the consequences of their choices, that doesn't imply there aren't better courses of actions or more preferable choices to make.

Epicurus could say each person chooses their own pleasure, but he was not above saying that this or that choice would not end well and guiding someone to make a "better" choice.

I'm fascinated by how rapidly the physics (motion) turns into an ethics issue (pleasure). A good demonstration of how they're inextricably linked.

Aristotle: Motion and its Place in Nature | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Not sure how much it helps, but it's a start.

Quote from PaulO

I doubt I'll be much of a contributor

That was my initial intention 3 years ago. We encourage questions and whatever level of participation you feel comfortable with.

Welcome aboard!

Quote from waterholic

I still have LOTS to read

LOL! Welcome to the club

Welcome!

Welcome, Goblin!

Your mention of IDRlabs encouraged me to look it up online. Here's what I can up with in the philosopher test.

Here's the text below the image:

Epicurus: Epicurus advised his followers to live simple lives. For example, their food and drink consisted mainly of bread and water, with cheese as a rare indulgence. Having been much misunderstood by posterity, Epicurus actually counseled that intense pleasures were to be avoided because they were often followed by pain – either from overindulgence or from losing access to the pleasures again. Likewise, Epicurus held that stronger and more uncommon pleasures would, at the same time, make common and less potent pleasures less pleasant, thereby robbing the man who indulges in the rarefied pleasures of the opportunity to enjoy a simple, quiet life.

***

Not the best description of the philosophy, but hey at least he was in the list! Plus, I may have gamed a few questions to get the answer I wanted.