Posts by Don

I found this Vatican Saying interesting, translated by Saint-Andre:

60. Everyone departs from life just as they were when newly born.

πᾶς ὥσπερ ἄρτι γεγονὼς ἐκ τοῦ ζῆν ἀπέρχεται.

[NOTE] This saying is a bit cryptic. Some translations render it almost as meaning that the soul is born again at death, but clearly that would be at odds with the rest of what Epicurus says (e.g., Principal Doctrine #2). I take it to mean that human beings do not change throughout life in their essential needs: a person who is dying, just like a newborn baby, needs only to not be hungry, not be thirsty, not be cold .

Quote from Todd

"Older people are more complicated. They seek pleasure in more advanced ways, and they often appear to seek pain in the short-term. But they hope that will bring them even greater pleasure later."

I think that is a great formulation. It avoids the "infants are just better" problems.

I could see that formulation, but I'd push back on "infants are better."

They're not better. They're a data point. Animals are another data point. These demonstrate through observation that this is a natural inclination to seek pleasure and avoid pain.

Adults not seeking pleasure but are another data point demonstrating what happens when we don't skillfully seem pleasure.

Pain and pleasure don't tell us what to act upon but themselves. They are a guide. We use our reasoning ability to weigh outcomes and seek that which will lead to a maximally pleasurable life.

Quote from Todd

I guess the fundamental problem I have is the idea that living things start good, and then get worse.

Oh, I don't necessarily think good/bad is the way to go. We as humans are observed (especially as children) to instinctively gravitate towards what gives us pleasure (in the widest sense) and to recoil from that which gives us pain. It's not good or bad. That's just what happens. As adults, we should learn - per Epicurus - how to do that skillfully to provide ourselves with a maximally pleasurable life. Some adults find other motivations and stop listening to their pain/pleasure guide.

Quote from Todd

Maybe this will be clarifying: In your opinion, is the cradle argument an example of "reasoning"?

I would call it observation, seeing things the way they are.

Quote from Todd

Quote from Don

It also is important to remember that Epicurus's problem was with indoctrination within the Platonic educational system: paideia παιδεία is the word he consistently uses.

Right, but if that it is the only issue, then you could look to the "uneducated" for ethical guidance.

Well... Sometimes that might not be such a bad idea.

Cassius brings up good points in #43.

It also is important to remember that Epicurus's problem was with indoctrination within the Platonic educational system: paideia παιδεία is the word he consistently uses.

Quote from Kalosyni

Quote from Don

And why do they want to do that? What is their motivation?

Fear and lack of true friendship.

Exactly! They are in pain. How do humans relieve pain? By moving toward what gives them pleasure.

Quote from Kalosyni

Some people do make choices out of how they want to appear to others, so as to gain respect

And why do they want to do that? What is their motivation?

Quote from Charles

ground it into something purely Epicurean

Hmmm... So that's the issue then. To be "purely Epicurean" hints at there being some "essence" of Epicurus's philosophy whereas Epicurus tried to use nature (and human nature) as it is found to serve as the foundation. There are definitely technical, specific terms used in Epicureanism like prolepsis, but "pleasure" is meant to cast a wide net and to be grounded in the natural feeling of pleasure vs pain. Epicurus's whole thing was to expand the definition in contrast to the Cyrenaics and Platonists.

To narrowly define pleasure or to constrain it would be a step in the wrong direction I believe.

Quote from Charles

Though in some respects, maybe they have a point, not in their rhetoric attached to such lifestyles, but acting in according to their desires in their own non-Epicurean way.

Well, Epicurus said it's better to follow the religious beliefs of the hoi polloi than be subject to determinism.

Quote from Charles

Perhaps it's less "happiness and contentment through my free will and contemplation" and more "pleasure is the active and passive sensation I experience from my study of nature and rejection of the supernatural on top of making choices and avoidances according to my desires."

Ok, I think I can see where you're going.

I'd add that Epicurus only allowed for two primary categories of feelings: pleasure and pain. All our sensations are supposed to fall into one of those (with obvious gradations and variations).

Plus from my perspective, Epicurus's philosophy is based on making skillful choices as to what to act upon and what to reject as to live a pleasurable life.

Quote from Charles

Oh you were still pursuing pleasure or acting on your desires; you just didn't know it."

I would also say that they *know* it, they just can't admit it to themselves because "pleasure" is seen as a "four letter word."

Quote from Charles

I find it to be extremely reductive and almost gimmicky to reduce a lot of other ways of life and decisions on the grounds of "Oh you were still pursuing pleasure

Ah! But not all pleasure should be chosen. Do those pleasures I have listed lead to a life of secure pleasure or can they lead to anxiety about the future or how one is perceived by others?

Quote from Todd

Pleasure could be defined as what anyone chooses.

What anyone chooses that does not cause mental or physical pain (in the widest sense)?

I admit that I like the "babies and animal" argument as well as "it's as obvious as snow is cold, fire is hot."

However, I always come back to why anyone does anything. For Stoics, being virtuous - or being perceived as acting for virtue - provides them with a sense of satisfaction. To me, satisfaction = pleasure. For Christians, believing in an afterlife appears to bring them joy. Joy = pleasure. For Buddhists, ridding oneself of desires brings contentment. Contentment = pleasure. And so on down the line. To me, there's no escaping it.

Quote from Todd

I feel like I want a theory. A theory grounded in reality, of course, but still a theory. This is might be a corrosive desire.

This is an interesting way to phrase that (and I'm meaning that as a positive thing not a criticism).

Could you share what you think of when you say "theory"? Would you have an example from another philosophy or religion (not that you necessarily agree with; just an example)? Or what you'd want the theory to be in Epicurean philosophy.

It seems that number comes from here:

https://www.thoughtco.com/number-of-atoms-in-the-universe-60379

and there's this:

How Many Atoms Are There in the Universe?

It’s no secret that the universe is an extremely vast place. That which we can observe (aka. “the known Universe”) is estimated to span roughly  93 billion…

www.universetoday.com

It's important to look at what that second one says: "And yet, those numbers don’t accurately reflect how much matter the universe may truly house. As stated already, this estimate accounts only for the observable universe which reaches 46 billion light years in any direction, and is based on where the expansion of space has taken the most distant objects observed."

Even so, I don't get my science from a 2,000+ year old text. However, Epicurus was headed in the right direction. For all intents and purposes from a human perspective, the difference between those estimates and "infinity" are academic. The word Epicurus used was άπειρος "without limit" often translated as "infinite."

My perspective on Epicurus's philosophy doesn't rise or fall on determining an unimaginable number of atoms. There are also other cosmos (cosmoi) to consider in the infinite All. When considering that, the number is atoms is unlimited.

PS. There's also the question of how to translate Epicurus's άτομος (atomos) into modern physics. Can we use it to refer to an "atom" as we define it? Is it a molecule? Is it a quark? Meson? Wave function? Again, Epicurus did not have access to our methods and tools, but he "got" that the cosmos is material and composed of matter and had no supernatural origin. That's the important point rather than trying to find a "Gotcha!"

Thanks, @Faunus , for the question!

Welcome back, Todd!

"THE ELDER PLINY ON PHILOSOPHERS." MIRIAM GRIFFIN. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies. Supplement. No. 100, VITA VIGILIA EST: ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF BARBARA LEVICK (2007), pp. 85-101 (17 pages)

Excerpt p.91:

Pliny 's philosophical stance

There is not need here to describe and analyze the philosophical or quasi-philosophical views of the Elder Pliny, since that difficult task has been done very well by Mary Beagon and others.28 There is a consensus that Pliny is not an adherent of any one philosophical doctrine, but that his mental landscape features strong Stoic elements, notably on cosmology, non-anthropomorphic conception of the divine (with HN 2.14, cf. Sen. Nat. 2.45), the existence of divine Providence, and man's centrality in the universe. There is also a clear debt to Epicureanism, notably in the rejection of belief in the after life (HN 7.5), belief in astrology and various forms of divination (2.23-24, 2.28, 11.273), and, at one point, belief in direct providential concern for individuals (2.20): superstitions from which the rational study of nature can free us (2.54).

(HN = Natural History)

I checked, and Pliny was staying for some time in Misenum (modern Miseno) with his sister and nephew (Pliny the Younger) and was there when Vesuvius erupted. That's literally only a 7-8 hour *walk* from Herculaneum (modern Ercolano), arguably one *the* hotspots of Epicurean activity in ancient Rome. So, yeah, Pliny easily saw, talked to, and had first-hand knowledge of Epicureans while writing his Natural History.