Posts by Mathitis Kipouros

Quote

from Cassius

In such a universe, where there are no gods and no ideal forms, it is literally impossible for there to be "universal rights" apart from what humans create for themselves.

Perhaps the naming is wrong. Perhaps that’s why Human Rights is better. I think we all agree that they have to be recognized and upheld and honored by us as a community or else they don’t exist. They don’t even exist after we’ve upheld them. The pleasure resulting of using them as factors in our calculus of pleasure is what’s very real. And I do think it does more harm to say they don’t exist, when clearly they are concepts we understand and can include them in our calculus of pleasure. It’s obvious they don’t exist, but negating their value and capacity as factors for producing pleasure seems to me absurdly purist, not pragmatic at all, and potentially very harmful by leaving all of us potentially subject to experiencing a life without these rights. So I would say, there should be a doctrine or dogmatic saying that states that recognizing a person's right to live regardless of what they’ve done, and to live free within the constraints defined by their interactions with others, because it is obvious that this could bring us all more pleasure than pain.

Don thanks.

I would only think that freedom and life could be universal rights, if there was any. Property I’m a bit more doubtful about. But I agree with you that these could be achieved from seeking justice, in the Epicurean way. And what I argue is, if they are so evidently effective towards producing more pleasure than pain, why do we have to have an organized body of government to recognize them and enforce them, if we could do it as well. If we understood that the pain that would cost us to defend our fellows' rights to life and freedom is something that could be pragmatically pleasure producing for all in the not so long run, we could easily accept them in the same category of justice, just enforced by everyone, instead of having a judge to determine it. But by saying just that they don’t exist, we’re taking the easy pleasure of not complicating ourselves now, but leaving our future pleasures unsecured. And by the way, what like you said, what is justice if not recognized by the people: nothing. There’s nothing in the universe that protects us from being harmed and harming the others. And I think these other cosntructs fall in the same category. Or if you could help differentiate why they’re not I’ll be glad to listen.

Quote

From @Cassius

Epicurus taught against making politics a career as far as I can see, but that did not stop Epicureans such as Cassius Longinus from helping to lead the Roman civil war, and I feel sure the reason is as you state. If you do not act to protect yourself then god certainly will not, and it is unlikely others will either.

This is another issue where we have to dig back through the texts but I think it is clear that Epicurus distinguished between unhealthy political ambition and between whatever action is required to obtain and secure peace and safety.

I'm having trouble reconciling taking part in a civil war with epicurean philosophy. I presume there’s nothing pleasurable in taking part in war, and it could only be if there was some level of sociopathy/psychopathy, but perhaps I’m not seeing something. And even if you decide to endure it for a later pleasure, said latter pleasure has to be so idealized as to make it unreal. When one goes to war, they do so expecting to die, very likely in a very unpleasant way, and the only consolation one can find to do this falls more into the realm of stoic idealism than of epicurean pragmatism.

I wonder if this confusion may be recurrent, because, as I have come to understand epicurean philosophy, for the calculus of pleasure to be effective and pragmatic, one has to be able to “add 2 + 2”, with which I try to say, there has to be pragmatic, and easily identifiable pleasure at the end of the pain you’re calculating you’ll endure. Deciding to go into war, seems more complicated than that, with much uncertainty at the outcome, thus making it a highly idealized outcome.

I’d understand if he was already involved in this, by erroneous choices of the past, without knowing better, fooled by the stoic idealism of the time, and this was his last resort to try to change his ways within the options he had. But for me it would have been better to do something else, or go somewhere else, like Epicurus himself did when he was being harassed/pursued at lampsacus (or one of the first places where he started teaching).

I think the line crossing towards fooling one self that the pain one’s enduring will produce pleasure later on is a thin one, and specially since we’ve been indoctrinated and bombarded left and right with idealistic thinking. I understand this has to be more practical. Pleasure should be more immediate and not “after a war”. If it takes a war to get to the pleasure, I don’t think it’s very real.

Likewise, Cassius , I gather from your display name that Cassius Longinus may be an important character to you, so I want to clarify that this reply is not directed at you personally, but rather intended to explain my point of view, with an open stance for correction and clarification.

I'm sorry to come late to this discussion, but I thought it was better to continune this thread than to open another one.

Quote from Elayne

I think the whole concept of natural rights is a disaster.

Elayne I presume you refer to the thinking-of-them-as-real-stuff is what you deem a disaster. But the fact that they are recognized (life, liberty and estate) as rights (in Cassius's meaning of being things desirable because they produce more pleasure than pain) by the bigger chunk of humanity-as-an-authority the recognizes them and will try to enforce them regardless of politics is actually something good. So trying to promote them, and honoring them, regardless of them not being real, is something very desirable and far from disastrous. Why couldn't we just accept these as good (pleasure-producing), regardless of having and organized body enforcing them, and be willing to enforce them ourselves in our quality of members of an existent cumulus of beings who can understand this, and each other, called humanity.

Quote from Cassius

"Rights" exist only where enforced by some kind of organization. Where the organization chooses or simply does not enforce them, the "rights" do not exist, and as Adams says, the issues will either be taken into the hands of the living people involved, or not -- but calling on "rights" is useless.

How is the Epicurean posture of not taking part in politics reconciled with the recognition of rights as being good and only posible within the context of a governmental authority that could help enforcing them? It is in my best interest to have some rights, so it is in my best interest to have a recognized body that can help me have them and maintain them, but if I only relate passively to such body, I'm foregoing control of my experience, and putting at risk future pleasure derived from said rights.

I don't think voting is active enough, because the options could be: bad and worse; unless we have a more active stance in, at least, promoting into general culture the need of this regulatory body of civilians, with the same interests (and then again this is why is good that some rights are recognized as universal/natural/human in order to reduce the risk of loosing them if the body of regulatory civilians tends to opine different than me in all issues). I think this inevitably exposes you to the risks of political life, whether or not you decide to take public office, albeit at a lesser level; but this is a pain that generally we should be willing to endure for the greater pleasure of certainty of some rights, otherwise we would be hiding our head in the ground (like in the discussion of Voltaire's Turk  Cassius ); I'm not familiar with the PDs but if they didn't include something like this I would be surprised.

Quote from Cassius

I have the impression that the context of religious oppression can be so bad for some people that they focus exclusively on attacking religion and their current societal problems without paying much attention to what they would erect to replace it as a way to organize society. Seems to me that Epicurus didn't do that and was much wider in his scope of attention.

This confuses me a bit. Why would an Epicurean would think of trying to erect something to replace religion which is, almost by definition, aimed at the masses and with the greatest scope possible, hence making it analogous to “public” work, and something we should refrain of engaging in.

Could you please elaborate more on this comment of yours? Thanks.

In the Wikipedia page for Voltaire Epicurus appears listed as one of his influences.

I think we both saw the same elements of Epicureanism, Cassius; that emphasis on what you can and cannot control, I learned about first while I was studying stoicism. I understand now that Epicurus came before and thus could’ve been the proponent of this. Do we have any evidence of this in the extant documents ?

I would like to understand better, Cassius , what you mean by quietism and why do you regard it as such a bad thing. What I understand of it is not something that is at odds with seeking pleasure as the greatest good. Heck, even to “sit down, give up, tune out, give in", if it’s the only thing you can control, and after your calculations is what could give you the most amount of pleasure, I don’t see why we would judge people who decide to act these way. It’s analogue to the belief in legends bringing you peace of mind. I’m not on a fixed stance here, so I’d love to hear what you have to say about this.

What I do agree with you on straightforwardly is that De Botton is not the best; he is trying to gain adepts by being easily digestible. Thus, I don’t think his focus is on empowering to improve your thinking and ability to gain control over your experience, but rather to get you hooked to his “wisdom pills”, and for this, a message of “letting go” is very convenient.

The reason I think the story is the Turk is very Epicurean is precisely for the reasons you state. Tending the garden the way he has, with his family, providing food for their self sufficiency while engaging in commerce with Constantinople, and looking after their 10 acres doesn’t seem particularly quiet to me. This would require a lot of labor and care and a desire to not let go. The fact that he was able to sit and enjoy a quiet time underneath the orange tree for whatever pleasure he was getting from it is a fruit of all the previous labor.

And I know your critique is not directed at me, dear Cassius , but I appreciate you caring to clarify it. 😃

Just a video that, despite of mentioning a “stoic end” to the story that is the object of it, seems to me has some Epicurean Philosophy elements to it.

Straightforwardly, the title; but beyond that, the type of life “the Turk” leads, and his opinion of politics; I don’t think the video's author's conclusion is completely on the spot, but his interpretation of it as a suggestion for living a “simpler” life, more focused on what and where you could actually have a physical interaction with, rather than fall for the false opinion of being able to have a “big impact on the world”, I liked.

I don’t particularly endorse that YouTube channel but it has some good “primers” on many philosophers; I saw its take on Epicurus a while ago, but I don’t recall it being particularly enlightening or away from the common places we’re likely to run into more often than not.

Good night. 😃

Quote from Don

Something doesn't feel right to me with that phrase "the value of truth" is "relative." I agree with Cassius that Epicurus would be comfortable saying there is no absolute capital-T Truth. No Platonic ideal of Truth. But I don't think you can really talk about the "value of truth" being relative or absolute. I'm not even sure what the "value of truth" means. There are things that are true and things that are false. And as Lucretius says, if it seems false, arm yourself against it.

Yes, my initial approach may have not been clear enough. That's why I later made reference to the value of our attitude towards promoting that truth. Which, as it's already been said, is high or low depending on its ability to be pleasurable or not.

Quote from Don

Plus, check out the characteristics of the Epicurean sage in that they will make speeches if requested and other situations. Epicureans will not be the street-corner preacher handing out pamphlets and carrying a sign. We will share our Philosophy both individually and in groups of interested or receptive people, but we don't require people to listen to us. We're practical, prudent, just, and can take advantage of situations that arise to share what we know to be true, not false.

Great pont and I will check that out, thanks.

Quote from Don

The "natural Philosophers" are those opposed to Epicurus in this instance. He actually wrote a book against them: A Summary of Arguments Against the Physicists/Natural Philosophers. The same word is used for them in both the list of Epicurus's books and in DL X.134: physikōs. In this case, these are the philosophers advocating for Fate.

This is what I had gathered from the post. So the naturalists are the Democritean determinists? Epicurus may have based his philosophy in the observation of nature, but he is not considered a naturalist, right?

Quote from Cassius

As far as the second sentence goes it would probably be better to ask you to restate that to make it more clear.

What I meant is that truth is not valuable in itself, it just is ; but our decision to honor (that is, recognizing its importance, and think of it highly and respecting it highly, thus, perhaps, trying to communicate it regardless of circumstances) the truth of something could be less or more valuable to us depending on the situation, and using the criteria of pleasure. In the hypothetical scenario of this post, honoring it is of little value; but in other situations, some of them already stated in this thread, this value is higher.

Quote from Cassius

In your example, rather than "truth," I would say that what you are talking about is "information" -- in this case information about the state of a disease and/or the state (if any) after death).

Yes. It could be a truth I accept and decide to believe, but not necessarily others'. Hence, depending on our worldviews, we could both hold our truths and these could be conflicting.

Quote from Cassius

Certainly the information that the soul is mortal and does not live forever in the happy fields of an eternal hereafter is not "pleasurable" information to hear.

I think it is a function of time, as in if you learn this early on, you could be excused of much mental pain, but if you learn it late in life it could be shocking and painful.

Quote

that yoke of destiny (Fate) which the natural philosophers have imposed.

What is that yoke of destiny? I presume determinism.

Who are the natural philosophers? From DeWit I gathered (please clarify if I'm mistaken that Epicurus could be classified as a natural philospher since part of his philosophy was based on observations of nature as the norm.

Quote

nor to be a cause, though an uncertain one, for he believes that no good or evil is dispensed by chance to men so as to make life blessed, though it supplies the starting-point of great good and great evil.

A cause of good or evil? Or a cause of what?

Quote

He believes that the misfortune of the wise is better than the prosperity of the fool. [135] It is better, in short, that what is well judged in action should not owe its successful issue to the aid of chance.

Who is he?

What could be that which is well-judged-in-action?

Quote from Don

If the dying one is in reality not troubled, why do you want to achieve the desire to evangelize?

Indeed, it becomes obvious that if the person is trouble bye the false opinions, our truth has the potential to set them free. But if they're happy with their truth, there's no gain for either to talk about it.

Quote from Don

I don't see this as a question of the relative value of truth. I see this as a scenario in which prudence needs to be exercised for the most pleasurable outcome overall.

I understand... but the question still remains, and indeed it does look like the vallue of truth is relative, which may be something that makes us uncomfortable but it might none the less be true. Perhaps, the question should not be if the value of truth is relative, but rather if the value of us honoring our truth is relative, which it seems to be the case.

Hello,

Imagine that a person is about to die of natural causes and is aware of it. They are not experiencing any physical pain and the thing that is giving them peace of mind is the belief that their immaterial soul will be reunited with its supernatural creator; probably also that they’ll go to heaven because they’ve “been good”.

You make them aware that the soul is material and that no thing that is immaterial exists, that good depends on your take of what is pleasurable or not, but you realize that rather than bringing them more pleasure to these final moments you produce them more mental pain.

A false opinion that brings pleasure rather than turmoil.

Being truthful for the sake of it at a moment like this seems stupid and not likely to produce any pleasure to either party.

Is the value of truth relative?

Also this:

"In a home I need walls, roof, windows, and a door that can be opened and closed. I also need a place to cook, a place to eat, a place to sleep, a place for a guest, and a place to write. More space is not better. More space means a bigger house. A bigger house means more hassle, more maintenance, more work to pay for rent, mortgage, taxes, and less time for living. More space also attracts more stuff which eventually means less space. The amount of actual space in a room depends more on personal tolerance for clutter than anything else. Some things make life easier, but more things do not make life more easy. More things mean more things that can break down and more time spent fixing or replacing them. Comfort is freedom and independence. Comfort is having the sweat glands and metabolic tolerance to deal with heat and cold. It is not central heating or air conditioning which may fail or be unavailable. It is not plushy seats but a healthy back. Luxury is not expensive things. It is a healthy and capable body that moves with ease with no restraints because something is too heavy, too far, too hard, or too much. It is a content and capable mind that can think critically, solve problems, and form opinions of its own.

Success is having everything you need and doing everything you want. It is not doing everything you need to have everything you want. If so then you do not own your things, instead your things own you. I do not need to own a particular kind of vehicle. I need to go from A to B. I do not need fancy steak dinners, rare ingredients, or someone else to prepare my meals whether it is a pizza parlor, a chef, or an industrial food preprocessor. I need food to live. Food to fuel my body and brain. Luxury is not eating at 5 five star restaurants. Luxury is being able to appreciate any food. Comfort is eating the right kind and the right amount of food. Not whatever I want. Eating and moving right prevents diseases, pains, and lack of functionality. I am what I eat and I look what I do. Everybody is. It is the physiological equivalent of integrity. To say what I mean and mean what I say. This too makes life more comfortable. Money is opportunity. Opportunity is power. Power is freedom. And freedom means responsibility. Without responsibility, eventually there is no freedom, no power, no opportunities, and no money. More importantly, freedom is more than power. Power is more than opportunity. Opportunity is more than money. And money is more than something that just buys stuff. It is simple to understand but hard to remember, but do remember this if nothing else.

Ipse dixit!"

(http://earlyretirementextreme.com/manifesto.html)

I came upon this text, titled as "philosophy", that describes the thinking behind a brand of the Early Retirement segment of the internet; it is called Extreme Early Retirement (ERE):

"ERE uses a web approach to lifestyle design in order to integrate personal finance and lifestyle in an efficient manner for individuals. If a lifestyle is seen as a collection of choices (where to live, how to work, how to get to work, what to eat, ...), the focus of ERE is on the connection between the choices rather than on the choices themselves. ERE is therefore not a collection of specific tips, tricks, or choices but a way of viewing the structure of the choices and how they fit together in the most optimal way. The purpose of ERE is to design a structure (a set of connections) that minimizes waste and maximizes the synergy between specific choices to increase efficiency and opportunity.

The unifying principle of ERE is a systems thinking approach to lifestyle design referred to as a Web of Goals, where negative side-effects are eliminated as far as possible and goals are chosen to have mutually reinforcing positive side effects. If a goal is seen as a primary objective, side-effects may be seen as secondary objectives. However, when secondary objectives are mutually reinforced they may be more easily achieved and even turn into primary objectives (a change of strategy) should the original primary objective fail or simply fail to inspire.

The Web of Goals can be seen as an evolving life-story that automatically minimizes waste (any kind of negative side-effect) and allows for the maximum possible number of opportunities in a rich world, or maximum resilience in a poor world. Over time this can lead to a complex arrangement of highly efficient choices that produce a given standard-of-living for much less than the normal cost or a higher standard-of-living at the same cost.

Compared to consumerism, where choices are ordered one-dimensionally on a price scale and prioritized according to affordability sacrificing one good for another, ERE is a brain-intensive replacement for consumerism with an S-shaped learning curve. ERE adds additional means of acquiring or building goods without having to purchase them, which increases flexibility and resilience.

One analogy is comparing monocropping agriculture with permaculture. Monocropping aims to increase the yield of a single crop by increasing the inputs of fertilizer and pesticides. In permaculture, higher yields are achieved through the synergy of many different kinds of inputs. Comparing standard-of-living between ERE and consumerism based on cost-of-living would be similar to comparing the yields of monocropping and permaculture based on the amount of fertilizer and pesticide used.

High yields in ERE are achieved by integrating additional inputs from many different fields resulting in greater personal competence. To increase efficiency ERE frequently borrows techniques from simple living, minimalism, frugality, DIY ethics, survivalism, car-free living, and others."

It seems to me there is an element of Epicurean Philosophy subtly woven in this "philosophy", although I'm still not able to pin-point it. I though it could be illustrative to talk about it, and hear what your points of view are towards this topic of "early retirement". From what I gather so far, it is sort of what Epicurus did, finding a way to fund his self-sufficiency in order to be more independent to develop his philosophy and "work" on something he evidently enjoyed. It all just seems rather far-fetched nowadays, but I guess for some people it is possible.

(https://wiki.earlyretirementextreme.com/wiki/What_is_ERE%3F#Philosophy)

Thanks a lot for following up Don - I enjoyed the straying so thanks to all of you guys for what you shared. Please don’t think the simplicity of this answer implies a lack of appreciation for all the very valuable replies you guys posted; it’s just that I’ve been lacking time to read thoroughly all of them, but I will try and reply if I can.

Regarding my original post, the winner was this:

“We are very thankful

We are very glad

For friends we meet

And food we eat

For home and mom and dad.”

Winner because my wife and kid loved it, and we prayed it together and no supernatural beings took part .

I made my own translation to Spanish:

“Nos sentimos muy agradecidos

Y con razones para contentos estar

Por los amigos que conocimos

Y las comidas que compartimos

Por mamá, papá y nuestro hogar.”

Ojalá les guste.

See you around.

Let me share that I am very glad that in this forum my nerdiness for looking up the etimology of words in order to understand things better is more likely to find ressonance.

Quote from Godfrey

I would add that one can be grateful for without being grateful to. Religion teaches that a person should give thanks, but what is important is to feel thankful.

Aligned with your comment, lLet the nerdiness begin:

Adjective

grateful (comparative gratefuller or more grateful, superlative gratefullest or most grateful)

>>>Appreciative; thankful.

Adjective

thankful (comparative more thankful, superlative most thankful)

>>>Showing appreciation or gratitude.

Noun

thank (plural thanks)

>>>(obsolete) An expression of appreciation; a thought.

Etymology 1

From Middle English thank, from Old English þanc (“thought, favour, grace, pleasure, satisfaction, thanks”), from Proto-Germanic *þankaz (“thought, remembrance, gratitude”)...

---

No object is mentioned. Once again, it seems like the word may have been repurposed.

Quote from JJElbert

I find myself alive in the universe. I know that there is sorrow, and fear, and that life sometimes hurts—but I also know that it is wonderful, really wonderful, sometimes sublime, just to be alive here. There is beauty and delight here that will move me even at my last breath. There is knowledge and philosophy to dull my pains, and to enhance my pleasures. There is friendship, romance, love, art, and literature—all the choicest fruits of a peaceable and prosperous age, in a free and civil society. To say that I am grateful is simply to say that I appreciate it. To appreciate something, and to appreciate the gift of something, are two different things. One who appreciates wine recognizes its worth and its specialness in a deep and penetrating way.

That's what it is to appreciate life and its blessings; to pause for a time and take stock. To see it deeply, and recognize its worth.

Yes, I agree with you. It's a matter of appreciation and to gifting to yourself that pleasureable feeling of wonder. Perhaps, what could be a good prayer would be something that comprises this: An expressión of acknowledgement of our existence as something wonderful, and with this renewed vision, an appreciation of whatever concrete things we have experienced during that day.

Quote from Don

"I am grateful for this food, the work of many people..." On a basic level, it makes us stop and think how we're connected to people and the world from who made the meal to who grew the food to who shipped the food and so on.

Yes this is a good point.

Quote from Don

With Nature, maybe gratitude isn't the right word. I think we can feel fortunate that we're alive and able to experience the pleasure of the sunshine on our face, the sight of stars in the sky, the power of a thunderstorm.

Well, yes. Acknowledging that it is good that we are where we are and can experience what we can experience, and to be able to reflect on it. Lucky lumps of atoms we. I agree this is a reason to be happy and good to have in mind before going to bed.

Quote from Cassius

On the other hand if they don't understand it at all there's not much point in it.

Yes, I agree. The point right now would be to have a placeholder for later, and not to continue reinforcing something that later on could certainly bring more confusion (the current prayers).

Quote from Cassius

24. If you reject any single sensation, and fail to distinguish between the conclusion of opinion, as to the appearance awaiting confirmation, and that which is actually given by the sensation or feeling, or each intuitive apprehension of the mind, you will confound all other sensations, as well, with the same groundless opinion, so that you will reject every standard of judgment. And if among the mental images created by your opinion you affirm both that which awaits confirmation, and that which does not, you will not escape error, since you will have preserved the whole cause of doubt in every judgment between what is right and what is wrong.

I'm afraid I don't fully comprehend what this paragraph reads. I believe my English is not so bad, but please bear in mind that it is not my first language and there may be nuances here that I'm not being able to grasp. What I'm getting is: If you reject one sensation your judgement will certainly be incomplete? That first long sentence is particularly difficult for me to follow all the way to the end. The second sentence I understood as: If you affirm an image which is not confirmed by the senses in combination with the ones that have been confirmed, you would be contaminating your judgement?

Quote from Cassius

I feel bodies which are not myself: there are other existencies then. I call them matter. I feel them changing place. This gives me motion. Where there is an absence of matter, I call it void, or nothing, or immaterial space. On the basis of sensation, of matter and motion, we may erect the fabric of all the certainties we can have or need.