Welcome aboard, m.repetzki !
Posts by Don
Regularly Checking In On A Small Screen Device? Bookmark THIS page!
-
-
This is exactly the kind of thing that infuriates me about DeWitt's book
(not, notably, his academic papers). He'll throw out a statement like this with no citation or reference. And then he brings up the tetrapharmakos in other points of the book in an evidently positive light. -
Don aside from the papyrus we are talking about what citations can you provide for that? Possibly they are in the tread above and if so I will delete this post...
I'm not aware of any other than a possible paraphrase in Cicero and its similarity to the first few PDs.
My contention + and fondness for it as a link to the ancient members of our school and that it is of ancient Epicurean provenance is:
1. If Philodemus created it, he is a pivotal member of the ancient Epicurean school.
2. If Philodemus was critiquing its use among other Epicureans, they were obviously using it.
-
This exchange may seem pedantic but I think there is a lot more going on here than just the two of us talking shop so I think it's very useful!
Oh, I can be guilty of being pedantic. Case in point: I'll disagree with people who don't see the need for the Oxford comma! But I digress...I would see that as an uncontroversial point and therefore unlikely to be the reason for its inclusion , and especially for its inclusion in the manner it is written.
See, here's a crux of our polite disagreement. And this goes waay back and I don't think either of us have budged
I see PD10 as Epicurus planting a flag against the Cyrenaics specifically and other "pleasure seekers" of his day in general. I don't think it's an uncontroversial point. And the point I see him making in PD10/11/12 with all those If... Then's... is that if all these cases were, in fact, the case; we'd have no reason to study nature or learn the limits of pains and desires or even study philosophy. However, those if's, in fact, don't give us what we need to live a pleasurable life and so we then DO need to study nature and learn the limits of pain and desires.I've always and continue to think you and others have tried to make this/these PDs do more philosophical heavy lifting than they need to.
-
[Ad Contubernales]
Just a reminder that the papyrus only has ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΥΣ... We have no idea to whom Philodemus was addressing the treatise or who he was arguing against (in the title, he obviously had strong feelings expressed in the text itself).
Plus, even if Philodemus wasn't a fan (a for or against case can be made) of the "four line cure" it was definitely in use and in circulation among the wider Epicurean community. It's authenticity as an Epicurean "memento" verse is indisputable. That connection to the ancient members of the school is enough for me to continue to be a "fan."
-
Quote
As animals – human or otherwise – navigate the unpredictability of life, anticipating positive experiences helps drive a persistence to keep searching for life's rewards. In a world of immediate gratification, these rats offer insights into the neural principles guiding everyday behaviour. Rather than pushing buttons for instant rewards, they remind us that planning, anticipating and enjoying the ride may be key to a healthy brain. That's a lesson my lab rats have taught me well.
This finding dovetails nicely with Epicurus' contention that anticipating future pleasure IS pleasure. Fascinating article! Thanks, Kalosyni!
-
But since one of our goals here is to be as clear as possible for ourselves and for others who are reading, we need to be clear: What really is the "general rule" that we are discussing?
Hmmm... The general rule I see in play here is "Overindulgence leads to pain."
general rule is that pleasure is desirable because it is pleasure. That's a flat assertion with no exceptions whatsoever.
Yeah, here we are with different interpretations of "rule." "Pleasure is desirable because it is pleasure" is just a tautology. Nothing is defined there, and it doesn't advance the argument. "Pleasure is the supreme good" at least hammers home a philosophical stance, and I see that as stating an observed fact, not as a general rule.
we're probably in complete agreement about the probabilities of what is likely to bring more pain than pleasure.
Agreed.
Where Cicero and the majority of the rest of the world try to attack Epicurus is in conflating all these issues together and therefore asserting that "pleasure" is not the best term for the ultimate good. If we agree to that, then we invite in all sorts of logical problems that ultimately make it untenable to maintain that "pleasure" is the ultimate good or ultimate goal.
Agreed. Part of Epicurus' genius was hammering down that there were two, and only two, feelings: pleasure and pain. What wasn't one was the other. Boom. Therefore, to decrease the sorrow, pain, grief, anxiety, and, yes, indigestion in one's life is the path to follow along with, obviously, choosing activities that provide pleasure. And those things that lead to pleasure are indispensable tools that allow us to make progress on that path.
-
I wanted to use both the like and the smile face.
Back at you...
Now we're getting somewhere.
You mean there is doubt in your mind about that?
Yes, I suppose that's true. That could have been phrased better on my part.
BUT - and this is a big point - the reason it's not proper to go further and say that choosing them will DEFINITELY bring more pain than pleasure is that there is no force of determinism in the universe that guarantees that result. Generally, even an overwhelming number of times, the result is predictable, but it's not always predictable, because there is no force of necessity which requires it to be so. When Epicurus wouldn't even admit it to be necessary that Metrodorus will necessarily be alive or dead tomorrow, he's not going to admit it to be necessary that any particular choice will necessarily lead to a precise result in terms of net pleasure or pain.
BUT - if one thinks they're going to be the exception to the general rule, they're usually disappointed. Does someone from time to time win the lottery? Sure, but how much money has been lost by innumerable people in getting to that win? This PD + 11 & 12 conveys to me the supreme importance of learning from nature, from what our senses tell us. We don't live a hypothetical existence. We live here and now in this material universe and in these mortal, physical bodies using our senses and our minds to make the most prudent decisions to live a life as imbued with pleasure as we are able.
I agree that Epicurus wouldn't entertain the Metrodorus question. He also didn't appear to like the paradox of the hooded father*. To me, Epicurus didn't like playing word games. He said what he meant and meant what he said. Our problem, often, is that he said it 2,300 years ago in ancient Greek.
*A person is presented with a person wearing a hood and is asked "Do you know this person?" Unbeknownst to the person being asked, it's his father under hood. This is supposed to show one can know and not know something at the same time.
-
That's because I am pretty sure we agree that "sex, drugs, and rocknroll" are definitely desirable pleasures, and completely proper ones, when not "overindulged in" - which means essentially "to excess." Correct?
Correct, I think. "The pleasures of the prodigal" are, to my reading, by definition pleasures to excess. Luke 15:13 which uses ασωτως ( the adverb form of the word in PD10) is variously translated as:
- in wild living (NIV)
- with riotous living. (KJV)
- in dissolute living (NRSVue)
- in reckless and immoral living. (Amplified Bible)
To me, τὰ ποιητικὰ τῶν περὶ τοὺς ἀσώτους ἡδονῶν "the things that produce the delights of those who are decadent" is very specific and carefully worded phrase. It doesn't say (and I'm guilty of implying it does) "the pleasures" themselves are the problem. The "the things that produce" the pleasures of the one who is overindulging are the main topic/subject of that phrase. So, we have two options to interpret that first part of PD10:
- Are "the things that produce" the pleasures of the profligate referring to specific activities: possibly including drinking, gambling, dancing, sex, etc.,?
- Are "the things that produce" the pleasures of the profligate referring to the overindulgnt , unlimited participation in those activities?
I think it has to be number two since Epicurus includes all activities that bring pleasure as defined as good. Therefore, if riotous, wild, reckless living and experiening every pleasure without limits did dispel fears and taught us about the limits of pain and desires, then we'd have no complaints against those who indulge in pleasure that way. But I believe he makes us ask the question: "Does riotous, wild, reckless living and experiening every pleasure without limits dispel fears and teach us about the limits of pain and desires?" The hypothetical (as you describe this PD) drives home the requirement to look at how we normally view pleasure. I think a large number of people today think "riotous, wild, reckless living" when they hear pleasure or hedonism. Epicurus, Philodemus, the whole Garden seem to have been confronting this same battle of both inadvertent and deliberate misunderstanding of their school. To me, it's both a philosophical point and practical advice, taken together with what has become PD11 and PD12.
I completely agree with the emphasis on personal responsibility, unless you mean that wording to indicate that personal responsibility is more important than pleasure itself. I don't think you mean that, but in the context of the discussion I could see someone casually reading the post thinking that is what you mean. We live for pleasure, and personal responsibility is essential to ensure that we do not overindulge and end up with too much pain, but personal responsibility itself is just a "virtue" and therefore a "tool" for living pleasurably, and it is living pleasurably ("pleasure") that is the goal.
We definitely agree here.
-
To reflect on the title of this thread: "Why Minimizing All Desire Is Incorrect (And What To Do Instead)" - I would agree that we aren't called to "minimize all desire" or, to rephrase that, minimize pleasures that we experience down to a bare minimal number of allowed ones.
Epicurus wrote that "all pleasure is good." If we equate "the pleasures of the profligate" at all times and all places with every experience of "the joys of taste, of sex, of hearing, and without the pleasing motions caused by the sight of bodies and forms," and avoid every experience of these (and other pleasures I'm sure we can think of), that's not the point. I continue to contend that it's the unlimited indulgence of any one pleasure that becomes an issue for Epicurus. Although, it's easier to avoid some to begin with if one knows the likely outcome beforehand. Nevertheless, if you indulge in "sex, drugs, and rock and roll"; Epicurus is going to be there afterwards shaking his head, giving you some frank speech, but no doubt welcoming you back to the garden if you want to sincerely learn about the "limits of our pains (of either mind or body) and desires" and to "study nature." He wrote a treatise set as a discussion among attendees (including himself) at a drinking party (Symposium, Συμπόσιον, number 18 on Diogenes Laertius' list) where they discuss, among other things, whether wine has warming or cooling properties and getting omens from indigestion.
Epicureanism has always been to me a philosophy of personal responsibility (tempered with an understanding of chance and circumstance). It's the outcomes of the choices that are made, NOT (necessarily) the pleasures experienced in and of themselves. I will continue to think that PD10-12 provides a beginning framework of why and how to understand the limits that we should consider to be prudent choice-makers.
-
But, I would read that as a caution that needs to be seen through the lens of (contextualized by) PD10:
Pacatusisn't the only one to bring up PD10 et al, but I'm just using his quote as a jumping off point.
I continue to advocate for seeing PD10, 11, and 12 as one body and not discrete "principal doctrines"(Saint-Andre translation, emphasis, bracketed additions, and re-arrangement mine)...
- ONE: IF the things that produce the delights of those who are decadent washed away the mind's fears about astronomical phenomena and death and suffering, and
- IF furthermore [the delights of those who are decadent] taught us the limits of our pains and desires,
- THEN we would have no complaints against them, since they would be filled with every joy and would contain not a single pain or distress (and that's what is bad).
- [Additionally] IF our suspicions about astronomical phenomena and about death were nothing to us and troubled us not at all, and
- IF this were also the case regarding our ignorance about the limits of our pains (of either mind or body) and desires,
- THEN we would have no need for studying what is natural.
- It is impossible for someone who is completely ignorant about nature to wash away his fears about the most important matters if he retains some suspicions about the myths. So it is impossible to experience undiluted enjoyment without studying what is natural.
LOTS of "if... then"'s in those statements. I know Cassius and I have had this discussion ad nauseum, but I'll give him this (if I understand his position):
IF the *pleasures* (NOT desires!) of the ἄσωτος (asotos: one having no hope of safety, one in a desperate case, one who is lost, a profligate/prodigal - same word used in reference to the Prodigal Son in the Bible) washed away fears, then there would be no cause to blame, censure, find fault: μεμψαίμεθα. Where we differ (I believe) is that, to me, that is merely hypothetical and not born out in reality. That's *why* we have cause to blame, censure, find fault with the prodigal not limiting the pleasures that they decide to experience. There are natural limits for a reason, one we discover by studying nature.
This follows right along with the next section, that IF we had no suspicions (derived from same word in the 2nd line of the Tetrapharmakos about death!) about death and were not ignorant of the limits of pains and desires, THEN we wouldn't have to study nature.
BUT we DO have to study nature and, to me, it then follows that we DO, in fact, have reason to find fault with the pleasures of the prodigal.
-
GnothiSeauton Thanks for the kind words.
If you poke around the forum or stick around a while (hope you do), you'll see me jump on the "but what does the original text say!" soapbox fairly often
-
That's not quite the Buddhist perspective. I think it's important if we're going to argue against their position (and I am more than fine with that, to be clear!), it should be clear what we're arguing against.
The first Noble Truth (NT) is usually translated "Life is suffering" but that's almost as misleading as just saying "pleasure is the good." The word translated suffering is dukkha.
The Pali Text Society's Pali-English dictionary
So, a better paraphrase of NT1 is "Life as most everyone lives it is unsatisfactory, filled with misery, pain, unfulfilled desire, etc." It's not wrong, life can be painful. But it tries to catch all things wrong with *how* people live in one word. That sounds familiar to the Epicureans problem with conveying the meaning of pleasure.
Buddhist team isn't satisfied with attacking pleasure, they want to attack life itself in the form of the desire to remain living. So they narrow the definition of desire so as to focus only on the desires that are most intoxicating and in many cases impossible, and that allows them to disparage *all* desire and make arguments that imply that the term "desire" consists only of those desires that frequently lead to disastrous results.
Again, NT2 addresses why life is suffering: thirst, desire, craving. We want things to go a certain way, and when we don't get that, it's painful. The word is tanha. They don't go after "desires that are most intoxicating and in many cases impossible," they go after ALL desires. Anything that we thirst for or desire or crave, if we don't get it, that brings suffering. They say all desire, all craving, results in dukkha. Tanha is analogous in its comprehensive nature to pleasure for Epicureans. NOT philosophically!! Just semantically, tanha does a lot of heavy lifting, like the word hēdonē does for our school.
I'm not going to turn this into a Buddhist apologetic, but I think it's important to get details right when we're arguing against other schools - and we should argue! Just don't want to strawman any of them.
-
This is a fabulous podcast and post discussion. It helps put into context what happiness is. Thank you. I'll be playing this podcast for our philosophy group next Thursday.
Given the topic of this episode, you may be interested in my deep dive into the letter:
Epicurus's Letter to Menoikeus - A New Translation with Commentary - Epicureanfriends.comAn in-depth translation and commentary of Epicurus's Letter to Menoikeus.www.epicureanfriends.com -
Never heard of Artemus Ward - thank you - interesting story! Challenging time to have specialized in comedy!
Few people seem to have heard of him, but he was BIG in his day. Also arguably the first stand up comedian. His Ohio connections endear him to me. Always glad to take the opportunity to spread the word.
-
That's the challenge to articulate, I think, because while the wise man will (almost?) always have more reason for joy than for vacation, we will also sometimes die for a friend.
LOL which is exactly why I skirted the challenge and didn't articulate any definitive response... At this time.
-
As an example maybe in the end he saw himself more as an "entertainer" than a real "social reformer" or "phllosopher." I haven't read nearly enough of his overall work to have a basis for a firm opinion.
Same here. My intuition tells me he would think of himself as more "social commentator" than reformer.
Fwiw, one of Twain's friends and in part his inspiration for performance was Artemus Ward, the stage name and nom de plume of Charles Farrar Browne:
Charles Farrar Browne - Wikipediaen.wikipedia.org -
The two stark choices seems a bit limiting to me:
- Live free
- Die
Can I live pleasantly living under a dictator? Is there any room for finding pleasure? If so, don't die. But John Stark that penned "Live free or die, death is not the greatest of evils" also wrote in the same letter “As I was then, I am now — The friend of the equal rights of men, of representative Democracy, of Republicanism, and the Declaration of Independence, the great charter of our National rights — and of course the friend of the indissoluble union and constitution of the States. I am the enemy of all foreign influence, for all foreign influence is the influence of tyranny. This is the only chosen spot for liberty — this is the only Republic on earth.”
So, we have to answer both Epicurus and John Stark.
In Stark's analysis, I am being asked to put my life on the line for a cause? Are there causes worth fighting and likely dying over?
Epicureans appear to have survived under absolute rulers (Macedonians, Persians, Romans), so my thought would be they had a different attitude to "equal rights of men, ...Democracy" etc. BUT we do know Epicureans fought to preserve the Republic of Rome (although that certainly didn't adhere to any sense of equality or Democracy).
My first blush response to Cassius 's question is that living - life itself - is paramount because it is the only way to pursue pleasure. Death is not to be sought (and I'm not even fully convinced that Epicurus allowed suicide, but that's another thread) when the potential for pleasure - even the smallest - is still possible.
It's not an easy question, and there are no simple answers - that's for sure.
-
I don't really have a dog in this fight and I'm not quite sure why I feel so adamant about defending Mark Twain; but, in any case, I appear to be staking my flag...
It reveals preference of non-existence over existence.
I don't see that at all. I don't see Twain expressing a preference for non-existence (or annihilation as he wrote it). I would say he certainly doesn't express it like an Epicurean, but I don't see him wanting to die. Or as TauPhi expressed it:
the only sensible course of action is taking Twain's hundred million years holiday prematurely... Mark Twain had some 75 years of opportunity to resume his holiday if he so truly desired and yet he didn't take it.
Twain simply says " when the opportunity comes" as it will definitely come for all of us. This sentiment of "when the opportunity comes" speaks to me of not railing against the coming of death when it becomes inevitable. By all means, I'll do what's prudent to stay healthy, but being kept alive by any means necessary is the antithesis (in my mind) of going out with a triumph-song on my lips (or at least in my mind).
When Twain writes "I look back upon with a tender longing and with a grateful desire to resume, when the opportunity comes", in my mind this is exactly the kind of sentiment expressed by the more Epicurean way of saying "Death does not concern me. I did not exist before I was born and I won't exist after I die. I had no cares, anxiety, worry, grief, or pain before I was born; I see no reason to suspect that I will have any of those after I die."
While I may be able to understand where some of the trepidation about the quote comes from, I see it as a very (let's say) Epicurean-adjacent sentiment.
-
My first question is "How do you define someone who is 'living free'?"
Or even "What do you mean by 'free'?"
Do you mean living "free" politically? Should I imagine Mel Gibson's William Wallace yelling "Freedom!"
Do you mean living free from fear and anxiety?
I'm assuming New Hampshirites would mean living free from the rule of a king. So, context is important so we don't impose meaning on top of theirs (for the moment!): 3:8 State Motto. – The words "Live Free or Die," written by General John Stark, July 31, 1809, shall be the official motto of the state. Source. 1945, 152:1, eff. May 10, 1945. So it became their motto in 1945 in the context, no doubt, of World War II.
The General John Stark in question penned what would become the motto as the postcript to a letter:I find it very interesting that Stark included "death is not the greatest of evils." As we know, death is nothing to us. I'll consider the Epicurean implications of this later. For now, that seems to me a fascinating little context for a deceptively simple motto.
Unread Threads
-
- Title
- Replies
- Last Reply
-
-
-
-
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 160
-
July 6, 2025 at 9:47 PM
-
-
-
-
-
- Replies
- 12
- Views
- 734
-
July 1, 2025 at 1:59 PM
-
-
-
-
-
- Replies
- 19
- Views
- 6.3k
-
June 30, 2025 at 8:54 AM
-
-
-
-
-
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 743
-
June 23, 2025 at 12:36 AM
-
-
-
-
-
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 1.7k
-