Posts by Don

Okay, we're getting somewhere (and you're making me hungry for Peanut M&Ms... My go-to confection )

So, we've established:

Eating "Soft Caramel Candies" gives Cassius pleasure.

I would also say:

Thinking about eating "Soft Caramel Candies" gives Cassius pleasure.

And,

Thinking about eating Chocolate "Soft Caramel Candies" gives Cassius more pleasure than thinking about eating Coffee "Soft Caramel Candies".

Let's just take those two for now.

What does having "more pleasure" mean?

I know you can categorize them, put them in order, etc. You say

Quote from Cassius

I have no problem considering the flavor, intensity, texture (some are softer than others), staying power (some dissolve faster than others) all of which let me easily categorize them as greater or lesser pleasures.

Those are all aspects of the experience of eating or anticipating eating the candy.

But what do you mean when you say or think: This gives me "more pleasure"?

This is a "greater" pleasure?

This is a "lesser" pleasure?

Is it the duration of the pleasure?

Is it a memory that wells up in relation to chocolate vs coffee?

I would suggest you're not actually describing a greater or lesser "pleasure" but something else.

The pleasurable feeling itself may be long and intense, it may be short and almost unnoticeable, it may need delayed, it may be immediate. You have a different emotional reaction to each of those experiences. You enjoy each one differently. Just like you can have different reactions to different mental or sensual (of the sense) activities which produce pleasure. The pleasure experienced is a good thing. The pleasure brings you joy. But the pleasurable feeling is the guide as to whether you'll pursue the choice to eat them.

On the other hand, if someone held you at gunpoint and made you eat 100 bags of Chocolate "Soft Caramel Candies", that would no longer be pleasurable. You may even grow to dislike the Chocolate "Soft Caramel Candies" because of painful memories. The pleasure of eating the candy is not inherent in the candy itself. The feeling is entirely contextual and subjective. So, there's no absolute greater or lesser value to the pleasure derived from the candy that is valid for every circumstance.

And yes I realize I'm using a hypothetical.

FYI: I'm not trying to be argumentive However, I honestly think your answer to those questions may move us along in the conversation.

Let me ask this:

Why are they "more pleasurable" to you?

What does "more pleasurable" mean to you?

btw: I'm not arguing against feeling that some activities are subjectively more pleasurable than others. But that doesn't make them "better" or "greater" or "higher." So, I want to read what you mean when you use the words "more pleasurable."

Oops, forgot the last statement:

"some pleasures are more pleasing (greater) than others."

No. All things which bring pleasure are good, a priori (I think I'm using that right).

It's not a matter of being "more pleasing" or "greater."

The criteria is whether the thing that brings pleasureable feelings does so with a minimum of pain attached. If it does, weigh that in your consideration of the choice to pursue it.

Getting into greater or lesser pleasurable activities seems to me to be going down the kinetic/katastematic rabbit hole. I think those distinctions are simply a way to look at different pleasurable things and are not value judgements. Better/worse, greater/lesser seems to be trying to put value judgments on them. The pleasures of the profligate are not lesser, worse pleasures. They are simply not choice-worthy if one wants to lead a pleasure-filled life.

I'll leave Torquatus and his son for when we get to that section.

Quote from Cassius

My position at the moment remains that philosophically "all pleasure is good" and "all goods are good," but that from the "perspective of real life," "some things that are good are better than others" and therefore "some pleasures are more pleasing (greater) than others."

I get the impression that this is a word game rabbit hole you're falling into.

I'll suggest step one is to begin using "good thing" when were talking about activities. There is no capital-G Platonic Good, and I think using words like "all goods" starts to imply there is Good. As Epicurus said, "I spit on the good/noble/kalos of it doesn't bring pleasure."

Let me look at each of your statements:

philosophically "all pleasure is good"

I would say, practically, "everything that elicits a pleasurable response is good."

Why? Because pleasure is a positive feeling.

"all goods are good,"

All good things are good things. That's just a tautology, so that's like saying "things that are positive are positive." Things are only good, according to Epicurus, inasmuch as they bring pleasure. That's why it's the standard.

"some things that are good are better than others"

Again, good things are only good inasmuch as they bring pleasure. You seem to be trying to make a value judgment among "good things" as well as "things that bring pleasure". That doesn't strike me as Epicurean. It's all contextual. For things that bring pleasure, do they bring more pain in the end or lead to the health of the body and the serenity of the mind, in other words, a pleasurable life. Among "good things" like wisdom, acting justly, etc, is not being "better". It's being the one good thing toward which all other candidates for good things point or lead. According to Epicurus, *that* good thing that is at the "end of the rainbow" let's say, is a pleasure-filled life. All other goods are judged by whether they bring that about. Otherwise, they're spit upon.

Quote from Cassius

Are we not left with the same question as to how to distinguish between which pleasures to choose

I don't think so.

Pleasure - encompassing the health of the body and "serenity" of the mind throughout one's life - is the standard by which to make choices of which desires to pursue or reject.

We choose those activities/things that bring pleasure now if they will not bring greater pain as a result, or we choose pains (my go-to example of exercise) *for now* only if they will bring greater pleasure in the future.

Quote from Cassius

So aren't we left with the clear conclusion that some pleasures are greater (and some are lesser) than others?

No. Some pleasures experienced in the moment will lead to more pain in the end (ex., drinking all night long when you have to be at work the following morning). That doesn't mean the pleasure of intoxication doesn't feel pleasurable in the moment. It's just maybe not a good choice. That doesn't mean the pleasure is greater or lesser. It means it's not choice-worthy judged by the standard.

Quote from Cassius

And if so, the question to "what is the highest pleasure?" is not answered simply by saying "pleasure"? Is it?

Yes, it is. But you're asking the wrong question.

It makes no sense to ask "what is the highest pleasure?" because, by definition according to Epicurus, all pleasures are good. The "highest pleasure" is never used to them best of my knowledge. Pleasure is the highest good thing.

Pleasure is the highest good thing when compared to virtue, wisdom, justice, etc., because all good things are judged by the standard of whether they bring pleasure.

What pleasure to pursue is judged by whether it will bring more pleasure or lead to pain.

Quote from Cassius

How do you interpret the "this" in "And because this is the primary and inborn good, we do not choose every pleasure...?

If we substitute "pleasure" there we get "And because pleasure is the primary and inborn good we do not choose every pleasure...."

Right. This = pleasure (overall).

The Epicurus Wiki does a good job of providing commentary on this section, as well as the Letter as a whole:

http://wiki.epicurism.info/Menoeceus_130-131/

Epicurus defined pleasure (after a fashion) in the section directly previous to those I quoted before:

Quote

health of the body and the serenity of the soul — since that is the goal of a completely happy life. Our every action is done so that we will not be in pain or fear. As soon as we achieve this, the soul is released from every storm, since an animal has no other need and must seek nothing else to complete the goodness of body and soul. Thus we need pleasure only when we are in pain caused by its absence; but when we are not in pain then we have no need of pleasure.

To provide some inline commentary of my own in ( ) below:

Because pleasure (writ large) is the primary and inborn good, we do not choose every (activity that provides the feeling of) pleasure. Instead, we pass up many pleasures when we will gain more of what we need (i.e., pleasure) from doing so. And we consider many pains to be better than pleasures, if we experience a greater pleasure for a long time from having endured those pains.

So every pleasure is a good thing because its nature is favorable to us, yet not every pleasure is to be chosen — just as every pain is a bad thing, yet not every pain is always to be shunned. It is proper to make all these decisions through measuring things side by side and looking at both the advantages and disadvantages, for sometimes we treat a good thing as bad and a bad thing as good.

The underlined section again reinforces why pleasure is the standard. We use it to make decisions, measuring our options side by side, looking at advantages and disadvantages between them, in relation to whether they will bring pleasure now or in the future.

Quote from JJElbert

I haven't listened yet, but my gut response is something like John Mulaney here at the 1:40 mark

First, LOL. I like John Mulaney.

Second, I found interesting in the podcast that she disassociated mindfulness from meditating. I also liked the discussion about retrospection (and finding pleasure in it) and prospection (and getting pleasure in the pleasure moment while realizing your plans may not come to fruition).

Quote from JJElbert

Whereas for some people an energetic and wandering mind bears fruits that are pleasing, rather than irritating?

See, I thought her point was to have an energetic mind. To notice novelty, e.g., riding in a car and looking out the window at all the changing vistas and new sites to see.

Or did you get another take?

How to Know That You Know Nothing - How to Build a Happy Life

Staying Present and Breaking the Illusion of Stability

pca.st

I thought this podcast episode had some very Epicurean tips. Discuss

I would like to offer these lines from the Letter to Menoikeus in support of my contention that Epicurus was saying the same thing as "Torquatus" when it comes to the "highest good" (my emphasis added):

Quote

This is why we say that pleasure is the beginning and the end of a completely happy life. For we recognize it as the primary and innate good, we honor it in everything we accept or reject, and we achieve it if we judge every good thing by the standard of how that thing affects us. And because this is the primary and inborn good, we do not choose every pleasure...

καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τὴν ἡδονὴν ἀρχὴν καὶ τέλος λέγομεν εἶναι τοῦ μακαρίως ζῆν. ταύτην γὰρ ἀγαθὸν πρῶτον καὶ συγγενικὸν ἔγνωμεν, καὶ ἀπὸ ταύτης καταρχόμεθα πάσης αἱρέσεως καὶ φυγῆς, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτην καταντῶμεν ὡς κανόνι τῷ πάθει πᾶν ἀγαθὸν κρίνοντες. καὶ ἐπεὶ πρῶτον ἀγαθὸν τοῦτο καὶ σύμφυτον, διὰ τοῦτο καὶ οὐ πᾶσαν ἡδονὴν αἱρούμεθα...

πρῶτον

πρῶτος
first
earliest
foremost, most prominent

πρῶτον ἀγαθὸν = first, highest, superior, foremost good thing

Greek Word Study Tool

Ah, that is pretty cool

Sic fac omnia tamquam spectet Epicurus! ..et Metrodorus!

Ah, that is pretty cool

Sic fac omnia tamquam spectet Epicurus! ..et Metrodorus!

This might help:

https://thebillshakespeareproject.com/2014/11/julius-caesar-sources/

Quote from Cassius

But that's an example of where Epicurus was right too - philosophy is enjoyable in the pursuit of it, and that's another example of how we don't need glory and power and riches.

I would also add:

A philosopher's words are empty if they do not heal the suffering of mankind. For just as medicine is useless if it does not remove sickness from the body, so philosophy is useless if it does not remove suffering from the soul.

Right. They put out position papers stating their objections. You make a statement, plant your flag, and move on.

Although, I suppose we need to have refutations ready at hand... So, I suppose I can see where you're coming from.

It would be soooo nice to have just ONE of those

Quote from Cassius

That's a "ha ha I wish we could" rather than a "ha ha you're funny"

Well, what's stopping us?

Quote from Cassius

Quote from Don

An Epicurean dialogue may go:

Epicurus: Does this action you desire bring pleasure now?

Pythocles: Yes.

E: Then it is good. However, let me ask, Does this same action bring pain in the future?

P: Possibly.

E: Ah! Does the pleasure you would feel now outweigh the pain you will feel later?

P: The pain, I imagine, would be long-lived for my life

E: Then choose wisely with that in mind. Even though your action brings pleasure now, consider the goal is leading the most pleasurable life.

Display More

Yes of course I agree that to be the practical conclusion.

Again unfortunately, we are faced with the problem that the overbearing established viewpoint starts before that point, and wants to question whether pleasure is in fact, or can in fact, be considered to be "the" legitimate goal or even "a" legitimate goal.

Plato and Aristotle and the rest cut their knees off at the earlier stage because through their logical arguments they convince people that they should not even consider pleasure to be "A" good, much less "the" good.

Display More

Well, then, maybe the position is simply to assert "Forget Plato and Aristotle." They've constructed a Potemkin village of illusion and made you live it. Abandon all brainwashing and set sail in your own little boat

Quote from Cassius

Not everyone will want to fight that battle, but it is probably where the Epicureans were ultimately defeated - when they stopped fighting it and gave in on the issue to the group that Torquatus says he agreed with.