Posts by Don

Quote from Elayne

Don my understanding of the engineered goal of social media sites is that it isn't intended to cause pleasure but to create addiction. Which has been called wanting without liking. They are pretty good at creating that response.

But doesn't Epicurus tell us that there can be only two reactions: pleasure or pain?

Quote from Elayne

Sometimes people can feel pleasure at having biases confirmed, but much of the politically biased content is angry/paranoid in tone. It's possible for people to get hooked on the excitement of anger with really getting much pleasure from it.

But can't people take pleasure in their anger? Self-righteous anger elicits pleasure not pain ("The feelings are two.").

And the addict experiences pleasure from the hit but pain when it's not present.

Quote from Elayne

. I read a book on artificial flavoring, the Dorito Effect

That was a fascinating book. Read it a couple years ago.

Quote from Elayne

Don do you have evidence social media is making people have bliss? I thought the prevailing evidence was to the contrary. I assume that's why Cassius said no.

It's not a perfect analogy (and it's not a total bliss pill), but here's my perspective:

• People choose to plug themselves into social media
• Socal media algorithms learn what brings pleasure to reader
• Reader feels pleasure at having their preconceptions and prejudices strengthened and confirmed
• Content fed to reader may or may not reflect reality; it could be misinformation or based on conspiracy theory
• I'm making an analogy between the pleasure felt at having untrue prejudices confirmed and having pleasure from the "bliss pill/machine" filtering/mitigating the senses and reaction of pleasure.

Quote from Cassius

Quote from Don

Is social media the "bliss pill" we need to deal with?

No!

I appreciate the wink and quick reply, but I'm not so sure we should be so quick to dismiss this now that Elayne has worded it that way.

Quote from Elayne

Speaking outside the hypothetical-- obviously there is no such thing currently. Could there be a technology developed which actually learns from individuals what they enjoy and dislike?

Actually, as I read this, I immediately thought of social media algorithms sealing people in their filter bubbles. A practical application of this "hypothetical" may be closer than we think (or already be here). Is social media the "bliss pill" we need to deal with?

Elayne Okay, what then is your answer to this hypothetical since I'm evidently adding this detail to the description of the bliss pill:

Quote from Don

you're ... hypothetically saying someone else's chemistry in a pill or someone else's technology in a machine will give me my own subjective pleasure better than my own subjective choices and rejections?

Metrodorus's book is entitled:

Πρὸς τοὺς διαλεκτικούς.

Pros tous dialektikous

Here's the LSJ for that:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=dialektikou%2Fs&la=greek&can=dialektikou%2Fs0&prior=tou\s&d=Perseus:text:1999.01.0257:book=10:chapter=1&i=1#lexicon

Quote from Elayne

Don if the fullness of pleasure is in a pill,

You're seriously going to entertain that even as a hypothetical?

Quote from Elayne

He recommends choice/avoidance because they work. If something else worked better, he would recommend something else. It's a pragmatic thing, not an absolute.

Of course, he does! I find it hard to seriously accept that you're even hypothetically saying someone else's chemistry in a pill or someone else's technology in a machine will give me my own subjective pleasure better than my own subjective choices and rejections? Are you really saying that so I don't misinterpret?

Of course, he provides a pragmatic solution. Epicurus was providing practical solutions to real-world problems. I don't think I'm being "absolutist." I'm saying I can make better choices for my own pleasure than someone else. By your "logic," I could just as easily say I'm going to let another person - or maybe the government - make choices about what would give me the most pleasure.

Quote from Cassius

to use a more classy analogy than Star Trek

Oh, you never apologize for a Star Trek analogy!

Quote from Elayne

Nowhere does Epicurus say a person should refuse to make a one-time decision for permanent complete pleasure on grounds that it's better to have less pleasure along with ongoing choices! That hypothetical is not taken up in PD10.

I'm trying not to use PD 10 anymore, that's why I didn't reference it in the response using the Canon.

Quote from Elayne

In context of the whole philosophy, choice and avoidance are used to obtain pleasure. Choice and avoidance are not stand-alone goods but skills in service of the goal. So there would be no reason to forgo pleasure and retain choice-- IF one were certain of the result.

Right. I'm agreeing with that. Choice and avoidance are instrumental to pleasure, like virtue, like practical wisdom, like acting justly. We don't disagree about that. I'm not sure where you're getting that from my response. But how do we make our choices and rejections? From our senses, our reactions of pleasure and pain, and our prolepses. If we don't have access to them, we can't make choices, etc.

Quote from Elayne

I can make one long time choice, such as I did when I purchased my condo, for pleasure. Of course, I could sell it...

Then that analogy is not not a one-time, one-and-done choice, by definition. I'm seeing the bliss pill being a point of no return. To use your analogy, taking the bliss pill would be like purchasing your condo then being locked inside forever.

Quote from Elayne

Epicurus is not focused on creating the maximum number of choices over the longest duration.

Of course not! That's absurd, and that's not what I'm saying. What Epicurus is focused on is telling us to use the Canon to make prudent decisions to make sure we live the most pleasure-filled life possible. If we cut ourselves off from the Canon, we have no hope of moving to the fullness of pleasure in our lives.

Quote from JJElbert

. Ask me another silly hypothetical question—I have no shortage of silly hypothetical answers!

LOL! Where do you stand on the aroma of dragon tears vs unicorn sweat?

(btw, I do NOT expect a response to this hypothetical )

Quote from Cassius

Before we go too down that road we'd want to consider whether Epicurean gods are conceivable or inconceivable (presumably the former) and also whether it is conceivable to talk about a human being as a god (also presumably yes, per Epicurus' letter to menoeceus and also the reference in Lucretius to Epicurus being godlike).

Oh, I would not include the Epicurean gods in the same hypothetical category as bliss pills. The former, while inconceivable or not, are an integral part of the philosophy as Epicurus and the founders wrote about it. That topic, while difficult, was of fundamental importance to Epicurus himself. I maintain it behooves modern Epicureans to understand why it was so important to Epicurus and what implications and applications it has for us. The bliss pill, on they other hand, is only an intriguing thought experiment albeit an ancient one according to the reference Joshua provided in a previous thread. I'm personally not as concerned to come to any ultimate understanding of the bliss pill. I don't expect anyone else to necessarily agree with me, but I've answered that question adequately within an Epicurean framework *for myself*.

Quote from Cassius

"Is the process of going through the details of a hypothetical of sufficient educational value to make the process worthwhile?

I think it can be worthwhile IF as long as one of the results of the process is allowed to be "There's no way to adequately answer this hypothetical given the possible parameters we can realistically assign to it."

Quote from Cassius

Yes this is the key "if it was a true bliss pill as advertised, then it would provide reliable pleasure." I understand you (Don) are unwilling to entertain that as a hypothetical so really the issue becomes are you suggesting we draw a bright line against all hypotheticals for which we have never seen an actual instance? I can see that being a reasonable position to entertain but I would think that would have far reaching implications that would require scrutiny.

We posted over each other

I guess I *am* willing to entertain the hypothetical or I wouldn't continue to discuss .

I just think there are some sloppy definitions at work when it comes to the bliss pill / existence machine. Not necessarily here, but people throw out this amorphous objection to pleasure and expect us to entertain it. It's a straw man in many ways.

I continue to ask things like:

How does it work? Does it substitute its decisions for mine? Does it make me feel pleasure where - objectively - I should feel pain (e.g., getting my arm trapped in a hay baler)?

There's too much wiggle room. Saying "it works as advertised" doesn't mean anything. Without knowing details, the question is meaningless. That's why I'm convinced it's like asking "Which would you rather smell forever: dragon tears or unicorn sweat?" Again, the question is meaningless. For me, it's the same as my objection to uploading my mind to a computer. "Who owns the hardware? How hackable is the hardware and software? Where is it housed? Who has access to my upload and what can they do with it?" Just saying "it'd be like being alive. You wouldn't know the difference." Well, I would if I started seeing ads in front of me constantly.

Quote from Elayne

Don if it was a true bliss pill as advertised, then it would provide reliable pleasure. Otherwise it's just false advertising. As I've said already, I'd tend to be distrustful of it, given the history of pharmaceutical promises! 😂 But if it were really as advertised, there's no clear Epicurean argument against it.

See, that's where I disagree with the premise of the thought experiment: "a true bliss pill." There can't be such a thing. It seems, by definition, the pill or machine is *changing* all your sensations to "pleasurable" ones. If it makes you only "feel" pleasure, even in the midst extreme of objectively pain-inducing experiences, it is substituting its chemical or technological "pleasure-inducing" effect over your natural sensation or reaction. By definition, it can never truly be "your" sensation. It may be perceived to be "your" sensation, but that's like seeing unicorns in a dream and believing they're real. Epicurus calls us to experience real, natural pleasure derived from our choices and rejections. That's my Epicurean objection to taking the pill. I assume you will counter with something like "if we feel it, it's pleasure." If I would naturally feel pain if I was awake in surgery, and the pill / machine was making me "feel" pleasure, that's not a natural reaction of pleasure and provides false sensory data on which to make decisions to live pleasurably.

Quote from Elayne

And yes, that is exactly what I am trying to say-- that as I see it, when you used PD10 to argue against a hypothetical it wasn't designed for, Cassius and I replied bringing in the context of the whole philosophy. I am trying to show you that you were doing what you said we had done. I see it as the other way around-- we were limiting the PD to its specific context without taking it to any general conclusion that would contradict the rest of the philosophy.

I'm still not convinced entirely, but for the sake of argument I'll remove my use of PD 10 to oppose the bliss pill.

So, if I'm not using PD 10, then, my objection to taking the bliss pill rests on its ability to override the Canon and substitute ones own senses and reactions for its own. Without the Canon - the use of one's senses, reactions, and prolepses - there can be no application of Epicurean philosophy in one's life. There is no choice and avoidance. The is no way to determine if you are or are headed in the direction of living a pleasurable life. Once you take the pill/machine, it will determine how your life will go, what you will feel. Once you take the pill, you cannot have reliable sensory input or be sure you're having a natural reaction to something.

To add some additional details from my perspective using vocabulary from Episode 54 of the Lucretius podcast:

1) I believe the "pleasure" pill / machine would prevent the senses from being reliable, therefore, there would be no way to make choices based on reliable information.

2) Epicurus made repeated observations on the profligate life leading reliably to more pain than pleasure; therefore, that lifestyle is to be "censured" and not recommended if one wants to achieve the goal of leading a pleasurable, happy, blessed life.

Elayne , I did bring up PD 10 in the other thread in relation to the bliss pill, but I thought this thread was to specifically discuss the meaning and application of PD 10. But I'm happy to summarize my thoughts overall on that specific topic.

The more I consider the bliss pill / experience machine, the less helpful I think that thought experiment is. I'm equating the pill/machine with unicorns, centaurs, and other mythical things. Discussing whether or not to take the pill or hook yourself up to the machine is, from my perspective, as helpful as talking about how pleasurable would it be to ride a unicorn over a rainbow.

It's going to come up, however, in any general conversation about pleasure being the goal of life. That's why Wilson had to address it. I also agree with her that Epicurus would advise not to take it.

I still think Epicurus would not recommend taking the bliss pill or hooking yourself up to the experience machine for the following reasons:

• Pleasure is the goal, and specifically living the most pleasurable life.
• We use our senses and the reactions of pleasure and pain (and the prolepses) to know the real world.
• We use the information from our senses and our reactions of pleasure and pain to make prudent decisions about our actions to move ourselves steadily in the direction of living the most pleasurable life.
• If we are somehow cut off from the real world, our senses will not work.
  • If the machine, only our mind will be provided sense data and it cannot be checked through the other senses.
  • If a pill, not knowing how it works it's hard to say, but again there is an imposed block on senses by definition.
• Without our senses, there's no way to use the Canon to make decisions to live the most pleasurable life.
• Additionally, from what I can see, the pill and machine would impose someone else's algorithm on what constitutes pleasure on me. If you say, no the pill and machine make you see what's pleasurable to you, we're back to arguing whether unicorns or centaurs are better at chess.

Therefore, I don't think it's productive to tie ourselves in knots discussing such a remote hypothetical when Epicurus was looking for a philosophy to help people in the here and now. I understand Wilson's rationale for including it in her article and concur with her assertion regarding Epicurus's reaction to it.

Quote from Elayne

I think you are reading far more into PD10 than it says. Epicurus doesn't take it as far as you have. It's not stated as a universal piece of advice.

LOL. Now, that's the same thing I said about your and Cassius 's interpretation. You're going to have to be more specific on what you mean by *my* "reading more into (it)". I think I'm taking the most conservative interpretation possible in light of what's actually written and taking it along with what else Epicurus wrote on this exact topic.

I think that Doctrine is addressing a specific life situation and refuting a specific accusation leveled at the Epicureans, namely that they're nothing but Cyrenaics under a different name.

If by a "universal piece of advice," you mean do I think Epicurus would advise anyone that a pleasurable life could not be lived by living a profligate life, I would agree. That is exactly what he says. Do I think that Epicurus would say that IF that life could dispel the fears and anxieties about the gods, death, etc., that it could be a pleasurable life? Yes. But I believe Epicurus was a realist and dealt with real solutions to real world problems, and as in this life the profligate life will undoubtedly lead to more pain overall than pleasure, he would not recommend it as a series of choice-worthy pleasures.

Okay. That seems like it might be a fruitful approach. Here we go:

Quote from Elayne

PD10 does not say that prudence is more important than pleasure.

Agreed.

Quote from Elayne

It does not say anything that would rule out a bliss pill,...

Agreed. However, I'm not going down the "bliss pill" rabbit hole again. This whole topic is like asking, "Would you have a unicorn for a pet?" but even less defined. At least we "know" what a unicorn "is" basically.

Also, I see Epicurus's philosophy as one of individual responsibility. Each of us is responsible for our own pleasure. We get to make choices. Let me be clear, I'm not placing decision-making above pleasure. It is a means to pleasure. If someone wants to take the pill, take the pill. As I see it defined, it takes away the ability to choose and reject, to chart ones own path. Okay, it's the *final* choice one could take, but the pill/machine is so ill-defined, I'm reluctant to keep flogging a dead unicorn.

In the end, the argument doesn't provide benefits to real people. For PD 10, I'd rather deal in reality and practicalities as Epicurus said philosophy should do.

Quote from Elayne

PD10 does not say anything to rule out the pleasures of the profligates if the painful consequences could be removed, or if they could be combined with the pleasure of information about reality that would remove false fears.

Agreed, but again I don't believe Epicurus is dealing in hypotheticals or counterfactuals here. He has observed that that lifestyle - in reality and in everyday experience - is not conducive to a pleasure-filled life. It does NOT teach how to remove false fears. I agree with your proposal that it doesn't rule it out, but I believe Epicurus is addressing a real person in the real world who asks "Can I have a completely pleasurable life engaging in "the objects which are productive of pleasures to profligate persons"?" To that, I believe he would answer "No."

Quote from Elayne

Don, if you don't take each PD in the context of _all_ the PDs, then you can easily wind up "proof-texting" and drawing conclusions Epicurus did not make.

Point taken, but I don't believe I'm proof-texting in relation to PD 10. I've seen people try to proof-text with excerpts and fragments (e.g., lathe biosas), and I fully agree that's a problem.

When I say that it seems to me that ya'll are making PD 10 do more work than it has to, I'm not saying it should be read in isolation. Each Doctrine is one of 40 bricks in the wall supporting the school (to use an Oinoanda metaphor), so I don't think every brick needs to carry the whole structure. Individual bricks can respond to specific tenets of the philosophy or specific refutations of other schools. Of course, each doctrine is a part of the philosophy and needs to fit in properly. However, from my perspective, there's danger in both the urge to prooftext and to overinterpret.

Ah, DeWitt. I have intentionally not finished re-reading all of Epicurus and His Philosophy. This is exactly what I mean by making each Doctrine do more work than it has to. When you (and DeWitt) say...:

Quote from Cassius

Plato is never mentioned by name in the principle doctrines

...I have to ask, "Then is Plato really there?" Epicurus and his school had plenty of other schools and philosophers to refute, both contemporary and older ones. I'm maintaining that PD 10 is a direct attack/refutation against the Cyrenaics.

I'm definitely NOT saying that Epicurus and his school didn't need to address Plato's philosophy, and I agree with DeWitt *in general* on that point. But, frankly, Dewitt's penchant for finding precursors of Christianity everywhere in Epicurus makes me wary of his finding anti-Platonic elements everywhere, too.

Quote from Cassius

I certainly think that we are together on the practical result of the doctrine.

Well, I'm genuinely glad to hear that. Originally, I wasn't even sure of that!

Quote from Cassius

I think we are just still apart on the type of argument being employed and therefore the implications involved in presenting the position as a system of thought.

My understanding of this differing position is still that you're trying to make this Doctrine do more work than it has to. My position is that there are 40 principal doctrines that all work together to present the full system of the school. I'm also trying to take the most literal approach to each doctrine with the least amount of interpretation. In effect, I'm going to characterize my literal/conservative intent as "Epicurus said what he meant and meant what he said" and leave it at that. I think once one starts to say "what he's actually saying is..." that's "like butter scraped over too much bread."