Posts by Matteng

Hi together,

in a substack article Donald Robertson argues for the Stoic views of Emotion.

Thereby there are some attacks and I think strawmens from Seneca about Epicurus view.

What do you think ? There is the teaching against the Fear of Pain, and to Endure it and even to see it sometimes as good when it leads to the "better good" so Pleasure.

And another question Can we match natural/necessary Desire in the same way as for Aversion ? Means reducing Desire also to reduce aversions ? Epicurean Courage would mean to conquer Pain and Fear.

That is the article:

Stoicism is not unemotional

How not to be like a man made of oak or stone

substack.com

Main quote:

"Against the Epicureans

For this reason, Seneca elsewhere explains that whereas the goal of Epicureanism is “a mind immune to feeling”, this “unfeelingness” is actually the opposite of what the Stoics desire.

Quote

This is the difference between us Stoics and the Epicureans; our wise man overcomes every discomfort but feels it, theirs does not even feel it. (Letters, 9)

The virtue of the Sage consists in his ability to endure painful feelings and rise above them, with magnanimity, while continuing to maintain his relationships and interaction with the world. Seneca returns to this point several times:

Quote

I do not withdraw the wise man from the category of man, nor do I deny to him the sense of pain as though he were a rock that has no feelings at all. I remember that he is made up of two parts: the one part is irrational, — it is this that may be bitten, burned, or hurt; the other part is rational, — it is this which holds resolutely to opinions, is courageous, and unconquerable. […] You must not think that our human virtue transcends nature; the wise man will tremble, will feel pain, will turn pale, for all these are sensations of the body. (Letters 71)

The Epicurean ideal, usually described as ataraxia, or freedom from all disturbance (such as pain or anxiety), is normally contrasted with the Stoic ideal of apatheia, freedom from being overcome by passions not complete insensibility. As we’re told Zeno put it, what the Stoics meant by a “passion” is “an irrational and unnatural movement [feeling] in the psyche” and “an excessive impulse” or desire. Stoic apatheia therefore specifically means freedom from unhealthy, irrational, and excessive desires and emotions.

This may be one reason why Stoicism has become popular with modern psychotherapists, whereas Epicureanism has not. The Stoic position corresponds much better with the goal of mental health as defined by modern psychology. Epicureanism sounds closer to what researchers today call “experiential avoidance”, meaning an urge to get rid of unpleasant or painful feelings. The excessive effort to avoid emotional disturbance has been found to correspond, not with emotional resilience, but with greater vulnerability and poorer mental health outcomes in the long-run. The Stoics, in other words, were closer to the truth than the Epicureans...."

What is often translated as „friendship“ is greek „philia“

Like in the word „philosophy“

It is a kind of love or attitude to others, so has a much broader meaning than having a few friends:

Philia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Quote from Cassius

Quote from Matteng

Today podcast episodes revolve around these questions too; I’m going to listen to them again, starting to rehear from episode 280

Good luck because that's at least 40 hours of listening!

Last year, I actually started right from the beginning.

That went on for several months.

But the great thing about it is that you stay more in the context and don't have to wait a week—it's basically "binge-listening"

It hammers the points home

I saw, many of the recent Lucretius Today podcast episodes revolve around these questions too; I’m going to listen to them again, starting to rehear from episode 280

To 3. Following human flourishing means social activities: I think that comes because of the Stoic definition of Human Nature as rational and social. Is it reasonable to speak of a Human Nature ?

And why Rational/Social ? That is not distinct to animals but a matter of degree I think.

For example I could state: Only humans are comedians so Human Nature means to become the best comedian one can be

On the one side there are feelings involved in social situations, praise and blame, pity, philia..... On the other, we need justic and security because not everyone behaves friendly to one self....

4. Pleasure is only an temporary End but in life there is no end but is everlasting activity.

I think this comes from the framewor or understanding that Pleasure is only a superficial extreme/stimulating feeling. To do things is a kind of Pleasure, living with no or minimal Pain is a Pleasure....

Donald Robertson once wrote me, that avoiding all Pain leads to experiental avoidance what causes mental health problems and is boring.

I responsed that boredom is a form of pain and that Epicureans choose Pain when it makes sense, and sometimes treat it like a good (this is maybe even a point for cognitive therapy, reframing) and that they teach to not fear Pain. ( Letter to Menoceus).

Even though Pain is evil, of course it is sometimes choiceworthy (worth/value measured by feeling, pleasure) that is what Stoics not understand. Good must be always good, bad always bad. To choose the bad like in the Stoic sense Vice would contradict their definitions.

But in the context of a life of Pleasure (as seeing as the good) it makes sense to choose pains for greater Pleasure. It is more about relative relation than an absolute.

Cassius Thank you for your input.

I’m realizing now just how much one adopts the questioner’s framework and certain biases when dealing with questions. And that can quickly lead to straw man arguments.
That’s why it’s good to examine the underlying assumptions of the questions.

For question 1 and 2 that are my current conclusions (the other will follow later):

Question 1: Relates to the Stoic/Epicurean Cradle Argument: Self-Preservation vs. Pleasure. And the Stoics mean the Decision-Making Self (Hegemonikon or Proheiresis ) as the Self.

=> It is a strong argument because Evolution is about self-preservation or self-organisation.

But for me I think it is a false dichotomy. The natural/necessary desires (life, self, eudaimonia) represent all self-preservation/organisation. But just existing or self-preservation brings no Value.

Pleasure/Pain are the Value System. A growing crystal has no Values and Desires. And the self-preservation ends finally in death someday.

Question 2: The shortterm/longterm problem: Some people see pleasure as bad because they confuse desire with pleasure.

Let´s say there is a desire for a drug and it use brings pleasurable stimulus. Following the desire is the problem when not reflection about what pain it brings to follow this desire, yes that is pure Epicurean teaching.

Hi together,

I had a discussion with a Stoic and he challenged me in stating that "flourishing" would be a "better" goal of life than Pleasure ( I know with flourishing he mean "Virtue" ). His points:

1. Evolution: Pleasure/Pain are signals but instrumental for living and the self-preservation of bodily/mental functions. Seeing the inner decision-making self as the pure self than self-preservation as goal fits with Evolution, it would be the Evolution of the Virtuous Self.

2. Following Pleasure directly, leads not always to happiness but sometimes to misery (sugar, drugs, anti-social behaviour). Following to aim at the good life has not that problem (Virtue).

3. Following human flourishing means social activities, following Pleasure could lead to unsocial immorality actions, when that (unjust activities) give Pleasure, an Epicurean could not have Objections.

4. Pleasure is only an temporary End but in life there is no end but is everlasting activity. Evolution gives no everlasting happiness based on pleasure. Eudaimonia was defined by Aristotles as an activity not an end state. Does a happy person or god do nothing when reached everlasting Absence of Pain ?

What would be your points / objections against this ? Why is or is not "Life / Living" the greatest good in Epicureanism ?

Or maybe it is ? Pleasant living ? Maybe Flourishing / Pleasure is a fals dichotomy ? Like a Flow state ?

How fits Pleasure as goal to our current knowledge about evolutionary processes / psychology and social acts ?

Good points,

I think on Philodemus and Emily Austin, that it the Epicurean Sage feels pain/fear/passions for natural/necessary desires.

In the past I thought of Epicureanism more as a realistic form of Stoicism but here is a crucial difference.
It is about avoiding unnecessary pain not avoiding the faculty of feelings.

What is the difference between mental aponia and ataraxia ?

Quote from Eikadistes

He was definitely "happy" in the general sense of neither grieving nor complaining, and he "expired undauntedly" (On Death 39.15), but I wouldn't say that he was enjoying "perfect happiness" or "pure pleasure" just because his mind was untroubled. Ataraxia is just half the formula.

I understand how an interpretation of absolute eudaimonia can be easily criticized by opponents of Epicureanism.

Aponia, as never having pain in life is not reachable. Maybe this is even more unrealistic as the Stoic Sage of perfect Virtue.

There is no absolute avoiding of pain possible, even to avoid greater pain, we have to choose some pains what Epicurus also teaches, so this he couldn´t have meant.

But a process view makes sense, every living being is naturally avoiding pain, searching for example always pain would destroy every organism.

So Aponia as a goal is complete rational but more as a quantitative / relative goal than an absolute.

To have more Aponia than Ponia/Pain in life makes sense and another point of defense of Aponia / Epic. Eudaimonia is that mental Pleasure can "counter" bodily pain and overshadow it.

So maybe in a specific sense Epicurus had until his death complete Eudaimonia ?

Or can we have Eudaimonia and loose it ? But when Eudaimonia is about the whole life then there is maybe just one answer, but maybe this answer lies only in one person and that is the feeling person.

The question " Did/Do I have a happy life" ? Can I agree with me and live in harmony with myself, my "good self", my eu daimon ?

Is/Can Aponia be part of Eudaimonia ? A challenging question, I know.

In my view Epicurus reached Eudaimonia the happy life but he had extreme pain, so no aponia, or do I miss something ?

Or is it more relative understood, so to have more aponia than pain in life ?

This desire for Aponia is understandable and natural but also a Point of attack for other philosophical schools, for example Cicero and the Stoics would say that it is impossible t get to aponia, we have no complete control to avoid always pain, especially when you get older in life.

Coming from a religious worldview I dismissed the materialistic worldview because I thought and was teached how disenchanting it is and it would empty life of meaning and wonder.
After finding flaws in my first religion I searched for the „right“ one.

At last I dismissed them all because they rely on an idealist worldview and Epicurean Philosophy teached me how liberating and even wonderful and positive a Materialistic/ Epicurean worldview is.

I also think Plato was the „Golden“ because he values people in categories of gold, silver and bronze/iron

Gold: Elites, King/ Philosopher

Silver: Warriors

Bronze/Iron: Worker, farmers

And oh, of course Plato was in the golden category 😅

I think „the Golden“ is a play on this arrogant and inhumane assessment / valuation of people which is done in every totalitarian state. Popper saw Platos Politeia as core of every totalitarian state.

Cassius Yes, I agree.

My intention is not to change anything in the Philosophy. Indeed I think that the core principles are kind of eternal/timeless in this world.

My intention is more to see/ show that Epicurean Philosophy is not an old/dead/fixed one but it is valid in every time.
The details for example in the explanations of Epic. Physics changed but the core principles are still valid.

For example: Does the modern view of gravity and curved space-time invalid Epicurus view of an empty void ?

Some Epicureans would like to extend their view others may could say that maybe our space even consists of particles or strings as particles and so on…

But we still live in an material universe without divinity or afterlife….

„…Of all this the beginning and the greatest good is prudence. Wherefore prudence is a more precious thing even than philosophy…“

Letter to Menoceus

For me Epicurean Philosophy is also ( what often Stoics claim for them ) „anti-fragile“

Where every new scientific discovery/ fact makes religion views „weaker“, Epicurean Philosophy becomes more „stronger“ or more convincing because of insisting on evidence and coherence within nature.

Hi,

in one of Hirams essays about the 4. criterion of the Canon he mentions rules for Innovations or Updating the Philosophy. I like the idea so that it can evolve with new data and scientific findings.

What do you think about it ? Has someone direct quotes for that ?

What would Epicurean Philosophy look like when Epicurus would live today or when the garden/school had evolved until today ?

Which basic principles are close to be „timeless“ or “hardcore“ ?

The essay:

„… In order to avoid cognitive dissonance and the muddying of his doctrines, the Hegemon left instructions regarding innovation, as reported by Michael Erler in the second chapter of the book Epicurus and the Epicurean Tradition. Epicurus established two criteria for innovation: akoloythia (“that which follows”, which requires that the innovation have internal consistency) and symphonia—meaning that the innovation could not contradict the evidence of nature or any of the established doctrines of the school…“

On the Fourth Criterion of the Canon

To fully understand this essay, first read the Study Guide for the Epicurean Canon.

open.substack.com

Right, this was not good formulated from my side. Modern Physics are all new discoveries.

I think that Epicurus would integrate their findings today in his Philosophy when they have good evidence.

In the past I thought laws of nature and natural forces are missing in Epicurean physics.

I searched for them and yes would like partly in this thread see the forces in the „motion of uncuttables“ but maybe also with an extension like an additional attribute(s) for void like curved space-time.

From where for example comes electromagnetic charges for protons ? Maybe from own motion/spin or the quarks in it ( the nowadays „atoms“ / uncuttables next to electrons and phitons ? ).

Or we extend Epicurean physics from atoms and void to fields and void ?

Stoics see in forces and laws of nature their physics confirmed, bit AI says me that even than when seeing energy, fields and information as fundamental, Epicurean physics is more realistic and closer to modern physics ( no intentional, governing Logos ). Exciting discussion.

Is modern physics an extension of Epicurean physics and follows from it ?

Both is necessary to fulfill the natural/necessary desire for Eudaimonia, a life of Pleasure.

For Ataraxia and removal of Suffering/Pain we need to be active and pursue Pleasures prudently. To hide fearful of pain in a cave let you painfully starve full of agony.

To be a pure egoist let you live painfully. To be pure altruist let you live painfully.

To develop a Character full of Virtue(core phronesis) and love/friendship (philia) includes both: self interest + altruism and balances it which includes the motivation to lead a life of sustainable and optimal possible Pleasure for your life which you agree within yourself, Eudaimonia for which some kinds/ degree of pain and risk is worth it.

Cassius Thank you, that really sums it up. After distancing myself more and more from Stoicism, when I read their arguments I'm still occasionally drawn to the dark side

And as you write, if one accepts their premises too quickly, one is right in the middle of internally agreeing with their logical conclusions. This shows how certain logics and abstractions/words can distance one from reality.

As you write, their initial assumptions are flawed. Judgment/Virtue/Reason doesn't exist in a controllable vacuum.

One needs a certain degree of health/life for Virtue. Sure, one can sacrifice health/life (for friends, family...), but only if one has/had it before.

I can only help others if I have a certain degree of health/life.

I can only think/judge with a certain degree of life/health. With severe brain damage or sensory impairments, I can't navigate life.

Everything I do is based on the premise of having/pursuing life/health.

Perfect sense for me now makes the sentence in the letter to Menoeceus (Actually, every sentence in it is pure gold.):

(Not only) wisdom, honor, and justice are necessary for Pleasure, but also Pleasure (in the sense of physical/mental health) is necessary for living prudently, honourly, and Just.

Something the Stoics would never admit, but which renders their entire ethics unrealistic and empty from the ground and maybe even dangerous in neglection the own health / Life or think it is the duty / right reason to do so. One possible way to become depressed / mental ill.

I try to deconstruct it a little bit, point for point, my statements come after "=>":

Quote

Th 1) Everyone wants happiness.
Th 2) If you want happiness, it would be irrational
to accept incomplete or imperfect happiness
if you could get complete [continual, uninterrupted]
happiness.
2*) Complete happiness is possible. [To be proven
below.]

Display More

=> 1) Compatible with Epicurean Philosophy
2) questionable

Quote

Section Two: Negative Happiness
Th 3) All human unhappiness is caused by having
a desire or emotional commitment [I will henceforth
say "desire" for simplicity] to some outcome,
and then that outcome does not result.

=> 3) Yes ok, but Pain Signals are important Information for life/Health/self preservation

Quote

4) Ergo, if you desire something which is out
of your control, you will be subject to possible
unhappiness. If you desire many things out
of your control, the possibility of complete happiness
approaches zero.
5) By 4, 2*, and Th2, desiring things out of your
control is irrational [if it is possible to control your
desires].

Display More

=> 4,5) No, because life/Degree of Health is the foundation of happiness and are not completely in our Control. That´s the reason Epicurus differs between desires

Quote

Th 6) The only things in our control are our
beliefs and will, and anything entailed by our
beliefs and will.
Th 7) Desires are caused by beliefs (judgments)
about good and evil. [You desire what you judge
to be good, and desire to avoid what you judge to
be evil.]
Ergo, Desires are in our control.
9) By 5 and 8, desiring things out of our control
is irrational.

Display More

=> 7) Incomplete: not only by our beliefs but also desires are caused by our bodily and psychological Needs and self-preservation. They are not arbitrary.
So belief/will are in our control and we should only desire them ? But what are they About ? Without Content they are empty and Nothing.

Quote

Th 10) The only thing actually good is virtue, the
only thing actually evil is vice.
11) Ergo, since virtue and vice are types of acts
of will, they are in our control.
12) Ergo, things that are not in our control [externals] are
never good or evil.
13) [cf 9, above] Desiring things out of our control is
irrational, since it involves false judgment.

Display More

=> 10,11) just a Claim why is virtue good when not for its possible Outcomes ? Vice is in our Control so it would be rational to desire Vice ?

Quote

14) Ergo, if we value only virtue, we will both judge truly
and be immune to all unhappiness.

=> 14) Virtue without Content and positive Outcome is empty and a phantasy. Believing in a positive phantasy can bring some Pleasure but it is short and in the consequence when desiring no positive Outcomes, no happiness will come but suffering.

Quote

Section Three: Positive Happiness or Appropriate
Positive Feelings
15) Ergo, if we truly judge that virtue is good, we will
desire it.
Th 16) If you desire something, and achieve it, you
will get a positive feeling.

17) Ergo, if we correctly judge and correctly will, we
will have appropriate positive feelings as a result.

Display More

=> 15,16,17 ) Yes but is Virtue in the Stoic Theory really achievable ? It is very rare and means complete perfection in judging everything.
So it could be that it is an unreachable desire, in Epicurean teaching: An Empty / Unnatural desire.
Also this means that you have as a Stoic your whole life no positive Feelings until you are a perfect Sage and all your positive Feelings are doubtful and enjoying them must be seen als irrational. An instruction for unhappiness / depression in my view...

Quote

Th 18) Some positive feelings do not result from desires,
and hence do not result from judgments about value.
[E.g., the taste of a good meal, the sight of a beautiful
sunset, etc.]
19) Ergo, such positive feelings are not irrational or
inappropriate. [Though if we desire to achieve them
or desire for them to continue beyond the present,
then that would involve the judgment that they are
good, and hence that would be irrational.]

Display More

=> 18,19,20) For life/Health and so for happiness it is rational to desire them when they Benefit.

Quote

Th 20) The universe is, or is governed by, Nature,
Providence, God or the gods. [Different Stoics
approach this idea differently.]
Th 21) That which is Natural, or is governed by
Providence, God, or the gods is exactly as it
should be. [Zeus is just, or however you wish
to express this.] {Nota bene that this produces
a problem for those stoics who are strict
determinists, since it would mean that even
acts of vice were somehow correct, and are not
actually in our control in any important sense.
But I don't think strict determinism about internal
states is a core belief of Stoicism.}

Th 22) If you regard any aspect [or, better, all
aspects] of the world as being exactly as it
should be, you will receive appropriate positive feelings.

Display More

=> 20-22) Stoic Physics. It is inhuman/unnatural to judge harmful Things positive. Accepting necessities is rational but also to learn from them and be motivated to do Things better or protect from bad Things if possible or to Change Things.

Quote

23) Ergo, the Stoic will be positively happy, will
have positive feelings, in at least three ways: appreciation
of his own virtue, physical and sensory pleasures, and
the appreciation of the world as it is. The last of those
three is something that the Stoic could experience
continually, every waking second, since at every waking
second one can perceive something as being what it
is, and hence what it should be.

Display More

=> 23) Ignoring harmful Things can have bad consequences in the Long run and reduces Motivation to Change for better or to value relationships/Things more. Emotions form Values and reminds us how fast we can lose People/Things.

Quote

Section Four: Virtue
Th 24) In order to perform an act of will, the act of will
must have some content. The content is composed
of the result at which one aims.
Th 25) Some things are appropriate objects at which to
aim, although they are not genuinely good.
Th 26) Some such objects are things like life [our own,
or others'], health, pleasure, knowledge, justice, truth-
telling, etc.

Display More

=> 24-26 Is there an difference between desiring and aiming ? Is there aiming without wanting ? Value consists in Feeling the evolutionary psychologists say. So it is an Illusion to think we can value/aim on Things without Feeling/desire. Here reason/logic tries to get rid of (human) Nature.
Why not end the desire for the external "Life" than you are never "unhappy" but you will die

Quote

Th 27) Virtue consists of rational acts of will, vice of
irrational acts of will.

=> 27) ah.. but vice and irrational Acts of will are in our Control so shouldn´t we desire them ? The logic is not consequent here.

Quote

28) Ergo, any act that aims at an [external] object of desire is
not virtuous, since all desires [for externals] are irrational.
29) Ergo, virtue consists of the pursuit of appropriate
objects of aim, not the pursuit of the [external] objects of our
desires. Such virtuous acts will give us good feelings
[by 17], and since we have no desires regarding
the actual outcome, they will never produce unhappiness
for us.

Display More

=> 28-end) So the Stoic Sage has good Feelings about pursuing (without desire) on rational aims but not on the Content of the aims….
So they are just happy About their thoughts and Need Nothing else but their own inner mind and everything outside of the mind they rationally choose but don´t want…..
So in Terms of Epicurus desires: They deny the natural/necessary desire for Health and Life but pursue only the desire for Eudaimonia the happy life.

I think there are extreme situations in which Epicureans come the same conclusions for example when choosing to die for family/friend.
But in general I think Life/Health and choosing the risks of pain from missed Outcomes from Externals must be taken for Eudaimonia.

Found this Stoic text which claims that the dichotomy leads to undisturbable happiness.

The main point is that when you desire no things outside of your control ( like life, health … ) you encounter no „unhappiness“ or when you desire only Virtue you get „complete“ happiness.

What would you response to such arguments ?

Cassius

Yes a crucial point, I meant philia as a positive attitude in contrast to justice as avoiding negative things.

And yes, dead we avoid all pain 😅

It is more about a kind of satisfied life or agreement with one life. A life with positive value, it is like pursuing health in life instead of avoiding illness absolutely.