Posts by Matteng

To get a better understanding of Virtues it could help to have a look at the "sub-virtues" to see more aspects of them. In my opinion the core of them all is prudence (phronesis ) and friendship (philia ) so the rational and social aspect for a good or better life which sometimes makes it necessary to endure pain for greater pleasure (hedonic calculus for example, enduring pain for others... ).

I would also like to point out that the following overview is a purely human classification and is not set in stone; there are/were other classifications/aspects in antiquity. Another caveat is that these classifications were often made by philosophers for whom virtue represented the highest good (so be careful when it is about Pleasure or Piety for Gods) .

Wisdom – Φρόνησις (Phronēsis)

Good sense – εὐβουλία (euboulia)
Good calculation – εὐλογιστία (eulogistia)
Quick-wittedness – ἀγχίνοια (anchinoia)
Discretion – σύνεσις (synesis)
Resourcefulness – εὐμηχανία (eumēchania)


Justice – Δικαιοσύνη (Dikaiosynē)

Piety – ὁσιότης (hosiotēs)
Honesty / Truthfulness – ἀλήθεια (alētheia)
Equity / Fairness – ἰσότης (isotēs)
Fair dealing / Non-greed – ἀνεξικακία (anexikakia, sometimes glossed as forbearance)

Courage – Ἀνδρεία (Andreia)

Endurance – καρτερία (karteria)
Confidence – θαρραλεότης (tharraleotēs)
High-mindedness / Magnanimity – μεγαλοψυχία (megalopsychia)
Cheerfulness – εὐθυμία (euthymia)
Industriousness / Hard work – φιλοπονία (philoponia)


Temperance – Σωφροσύνη (Sōphrosynē)

Good discipline – εὐταξία (eutaxia)
Seemliness / Decorum – κόσμιος (kosmios)
Modesty – αἰδώς (aidōs)
Self-control – ἐγκράτεια (enkrateia)

---

Here is a similiar classification/explanation:

Forty-Four Stoic Virtues: Pseudo-Andronicus’ On Passions, and Stoic Life by Matthew Sharpe

Introduction  It is well-known that the Stoics hold there to be four cardinal virtues: courage (andreia), justice (dikaiosunê), moderation (sôphrosunê), and…

modernstoicism.com

The Epicurean way of life is the way of Virtue and Pleasure.

Here is an quote from Philodemus which extends the one from PD and letter from Menoeceus:

„It is impossible for one to live pleasurably without living prudently and honourably and justly, and also without living courageously and temperately and magnanimously, and without making friends and without being philanthropic, and in general without having all the other virtues. For the greatest errors in things we choose or avoid occur when some people accomplish individual actions while they hold the opposite view and, because of that, are in the grip of vices. (De elect. XIV. 1–14)“

Book: The Ethics of Philodemus, from Voula Tsouna

Thanks, I often worry

that the topic sometimes fades into the background because rivals to Epicurean philosophy often define virtue as the highest good instead of Pleasure.

One must be careful not to create a false dichotomy like virtue vs. pleasure. In Epicureanism, virtue and pleasure grow together, but virtue gets its value from pleasure, not the other way around. Virtue is the greatest but instrumental good. Therefore, many people (as I used to) unconsciously believe that Stoics, for example, are generally more virtuous than Epicureans, which is nonsense. The path to pleasure/eudaimonia always leads via virtue. I see the biggest difference (virtue or pleasure as the core of eudaimonia/life goal) in that eudaimonia, the good self or inner spirit, is defined by the Stoics as "doing good" while Epicureans define it as "experiencing good."

From Aristotle I have seen clearer that „philia“ what is mostly tranlated as „friendship“ and often is understood as „having friends“ means also „friendly love“.
It is a form of love.

And that enhances for me the meaning, it is for me something that we do, an attitude, virtue like prudence, feeling.

It reminds me of buddhist teaching in mahayana as in the image of a bird with 2 wings -> wisdom and compassion.

Similiar to this I see prudence (phronesis) and friendly love / friendship (philia) as the main Epicurean values.

But what is an „undying/immortal good“ when death is nothing to someone ? That friends maybe live longer than me ? Hm maybe, but it is about the mortality of the good.

When is a good mortal ?
Maybe something similiar like Plato forms but in realistic and earthed ? A good that is maybe not fleeting but maybe has a long endurance at least until the own death or that its consequences last longer maybe over the own death.

But that last aspect maybe confuses the mortality of humans with the mortality of goods ? 🙂🙃

Maybe neuro science will prove it someday.

Can there be anything "good" without a positiv affection ? Isn´t that ( positive affection / pleasure ) and the desire for that, what differentiates us against robots ?

When Pleasure/Pain is the core of all personal values than it is the only intrinsic good. But yes we must separate Pleasure and the consequences that have to be evaluated separately against further Pleasure/Pain.

The Stoic say that Virtue leads always to good things, Pleasure not. For that the separation is crucial. With this analysis I can see, that the statement "Virtue is always good, Pleasure not " has this problems:

1. That it is just a defintion (tautalogy) ( Virtue (the good) leads to good things/outcomes )

2. Good things / outcomes are externals for Stoics so cannot be good (in their own definition) so Virtue leads only to no-goods (indifferents/externals)

3. When Virtue is good because it always leads to good outcomes, than there is a differentiation between Virtue and "Good", so 2 separate things and Virtue gets good because of the outcomes (= what makes Virtue instrumentally and valuable only because of the outcomes)

4. And how do we value "good things/outcomes" ? With affection, feelings, so we judge everything with our feelings, in the core with Pleasure / Pain and also we judge their consequences with Pleasure/Pain.

Thats currently my prove that Pleasure is the supreme intrinsic good and not Virtue which is the greates instrumental good with its core phronesis (prudence ) and philia (friendship) which both are the basics for every ethic / moral. In my Opinion

I noticed Epicurean themes in some Marvel movies.

For example in „Guardians of the Galaxy vol. 3“ the Villian is a perfectionist and his headquarter is called „Aretarium“ with the root word „Arete“ ( Virtue ) 😆

In „Thor: Love and Thunder“ there is a charicature of the greek gods, they live in a bubble, are threatened by an god killer ( who served a god who was exploitative and doesn‘t care ), and they want to ignore that fact and only plan the next orgy.

It‘s a mix for me where I see Epicureans subjects like the idifference of the gods but could also be the prejudice of the Epicureans gods or general of the greek gods.

The powerful chain of living prudence - honour - justice

It has the power to create the pleasant life, eudaimonia.

~Prudence/ reason -> Choice and Avoidance -> Connection with honour (choosing your values) and with justice ( reflecting/ choosing your behaviour with others) =>for less Pain greater Pleasure

~Honour-> Choosing your values using Prudence and Justice for that =>for less Pain greater Pleasure

~Justice-> Relation to Others -> Consider your Values (Honour) and choosing your actions and Agreements wisely (Prudence) =>for less Pain greater Pleasure

All support each other for the pleasant/eudaimomt life like a powerful almost magic chain 🙂

Your thoughts ?

Letter to Menoceus:
„Of all this the beginning and the greatest good is prudence. Wherefore prudence is a more precious thing even than philosophy: for from prudence are sprung all the other virtues, and it teaches us that it is not possible to live pleasantly without living prudently and honorably and justly, (nor, again, to live a life of prudence, honor, and justice) without living pleasantly. For the virtues are by nature bound up with the pleasant life, and the pleasant life is inseparable from them“

Why is friendship immortal ? My thoughts:

It is meant to be divine. Divine are the gods with 2 aspects: they are blessed and incorrupticle. With blessed I think the highest good/ goal is meant => Pleasure.

Conclusion: Prudence is an instrumental good but friendship ( Philia) is a Pleasure ( so blessedness so divine ) a „immortal“ good.

Your thoughts ?

Would that fit in Epicurean Cosmology ?

Big bang and big bounce / crunch was more the Stoic view or ?
And that the void is not complete empty but has energy and quantum fluktuation. Otherwise the idea that even void or space consists of a kind of particle or is quantized and not unlimited divisible and that the most of the cosmos is not much beneficial / providental to life fits more to Epicurean worldview.

Also that many cosmoi can exist develop.

Why should someone hold pleasure for evil ?
Maybe that philosphers confuse pleasure and their consequences which sometimes can be painful / harmful.

Such consequences would eveyone try to avoid for whom pleasure is the highest good.

Attacks against this insight are mostly

1. Pleasure is fleeting

and

2. There is bad Pleasure.

What defenses would you see ?
The defense of the 1. is that yes everything is fleeting, so life is fleeting ( even virtue ) but there are the more stable forms of Pleasure like Ataraxia/ tranquility.

For the 2. there Epicurus divides Pleasure and their bad consequences.

How defensable is that?

Bad Pleasures could be addictions or laziness, sadism, masochism.

Take your time, for me it is as you say one of the most important subject to distinguish Epicureanism vs the other ancient schools especially Stoicism which I followed in the past.

Quality first 👍

In addition, it is precisely on this topic that the harshest criticism of Epicureanism is voiced. For example the critics say that where Virtue is instrumental for Pleasure, this Virtue wouldn't be Virtue at all or only a weak form of it and Pleasure enslaved.

( Often the divison of Pleasure of Body and Mind is not considered, for Peace of Mind/Tranquility it often makes sense to not pursue bodily Pleasures, and for the subject of bad consequences of things which bring Pleasure like addiction, Epicurus has his answers like sober reasoning, hedonic calculus, what brings more pain than pleasure should be avoided….)

The Stoics accept only a perfected rational joy(chara). But even this they would not see as the end of the happy life but Virtue (Maybe because you can get to a form of Tranquility with ignorance and in running from challenges/duties ( another critic), but this is not suadtainable/honorable/just/prudent(defense).

A perfect Peace of Mind is only available for a perfect Sage and with Virtue (The Stoics say) ( maybe an unlimited desire for limitless self improvement ? )

Very exciting for me 👍

The Stoics who I challenge to convince me that Virtue is the only good point always to Platos Socrates Euthydemus( maybe the points which there are mentioned could be challenged):

Euthydemus

www.gutenberg.org

- Virtue is in our power Pleasure/ Tranquility depends on Externals (only true for bodily Pleasure, not so much for Mental Pleasure I think, that is an „Internal“ or ?)

-Without Virtue nothing is good

-Only with Virtue things can be used useful

Another point:
Ataraxia is Peace of mind, confidence, fearlessness etc ….

But ok I can have peace of mind / tranquility in ignoring troubling facts, taking tranquilizers or ( with virtue ) fulfilling your values, duties, confronting uncomfortable things/ situations.

The Epicureans are often accused of the first. (Defense: you need to live wise, ->honourable<-, justly to live pleasurable)

I thought a little further about desire and the natural/necessary desires.

- Yes unfulfilled desires are/causes pain

- The faculty of pain/pleasure is there to guide us to fulfill these desires and gives pleasure when it is followed

- Without desire and the pleasure in fulfilling and pain in not fulfilling, life would vanish.

=> Our whole body exists for that, we have arms, legs, stomachs, organs, brain etc. which we would not need if we have no need for searching for food/drink/security. Like a stork, often seen as a divine animal but all it organs are selected/adapted / evolved for efficient survival in swamps.

It would be like in Christianity the thoughts about "heaven". If you have no needs/desires/motives for what do you need a body ? A house ? A city ? What are you doing ?

We would be empty roboters but with no function because a function has only meaning and evolved when fulfilling a purpose, a telos.

Yes the natural / necessary desires are of the highest value. Wirhout them life declines like in a depression

Often these desires are shortened as desires for the stomach, a prejudice from Cicero/Stoics/Platonists which say „ we desire perfect knowledge and harmony wirh the cosmos, you Epicureans only to get your stomach full…“

But the core embraced desires include

- Body / health (Aponia)

- Life/ Security (Life means more than having a healthy body, sometimes we have to sacrifice health or choose pain for living )

- Happiness /Eudaimonia/Ataraxia

( which means more than simply to live, you can live a miserable life with an troubled frustrated mind and sometimes we limit/ sacrifice our life or parts for our values, like in extremes dying for a friend/ love/community / or our dignity )

So natural/necessary desires include a whole set of personal values and Emotions imo and how I understand the letter of menoceus.

Hi I found an article which supports the Epicurean view of anger as taught by Philodemus and speaks out against the view of the Stoics (although unfortunately only Aristotle's philosophy is mentioned in passing as more realistic, I think Epicurean themes are unfortunately still too unknown in some circles):

Stoics in Need of Anger Management | Issue 163 | Philosophy Now

Inside the necessary / natural desires there could be the level from top to bottom ( just my idea/ proposal):

1. Desires for happines ( eudaimonia )
2. Desires for Life

3. Desires for body/health

But like Maslow maybe a hierarchy would be not so realistic.

For example I could sacrifice 3 (health) for 2. ( living ) in cutting a part of the body or toxicate me to live better.

And 2( living ) don‘t mean a happy life (1), so it can make sense to limit „life“ for happiness, in the extreme case in dying for a friend/ loved person so that you fulfill stage 1 but not 2 and 3 but to get to 1 you need a body (1) and a life (2) in the first place 😉

I don't know if it fits here, but I would also be interested in the views on the Stoic paradoxes and Cicero's defense of them

Cicero’s Stoic Paradoxes

One of the most famous secondary sources on Stoicism is a collection of six essays by Cicero (who considered himself an Academic Platonist, but was sympathetic…

howtobeastoic.wordpress.com

For example "Virtue is the only good", all virtue is equal and all vice, (here are interesting contradictions for example Marcus Aurelius says no one can harm him only vice can do and vice is bad and it is rational to feel bad only about vice and virtue is the only good so it is only good to feel good about virtue ( chara, joy ), so the Stoic Sage feels joy but every Non-Sage (like Marcus Aurelius, Epictetus, Seneca and everyone + every Stoic prokopton ) is maximised harmed already because they are in a vicious state and it is right to feel bad about it .... )

Discussed here:

https://howtobeastoic.wordpress.com/2018/04/13/sto…sm-and-remorse/.

)
What would an Epicurean critic of these and the other paradoxes would look like?

To make it basic, how would you all label these pleasures with:

-kinetik, kastatematic

- rational/ or active produced( awareness, reflection, gratitude…) , nonrational/ or passive from body produced

-Aponia/ Ataraxia

->
1. Hungry: Pain

2. Eat: Pleasure

? Kinetic( temporary), nonrational/ (bodily pleasure)

3. Full/Not hungry: Pleasure

? Katastematic (static), bodily, Aponia

4. Reasonable Hope to get full in future:

Pleasure, Katastematic, rational joy (mind), Ataraxia ?

5. Gratitude for ability to fulfilling necessary desires in future ( with help of virtue, friends/community):

Pleasure, Katastematic, rational joy (mind), Ataraxia ?

Have I forgotten something?

Your thoughts?

Quote from Kalosyni

Quote from Cassius

Why does Epicurus consider the absence of pain to be pleasure?

When pain is absent from the body, the appreciation of that experience is mentally enjoyable.

***

And here is a full list of pleasures:

- enjoyable and pleasant bodily sensations (sights, sounds, tastes, touch, smell, etc.)

- the cessation of pain in the body (when pain is no longer present) (pain = sharp, piercing, burning, stinging, throbing, heavy)

- awareness that the body is healthy (no pain present)

- enjoyable and pleasant mental feelings and thoughts (joy, clarity, calm, strength, gratitude)

- the cessation of unpleasant emotions (fear, worry, anxiety)

- awareness of a clear mind free from unpleasant emotions (fear, worry, anxiety)

Display More

A good list about Pleasures.
One question:
I see they some include/not include awareness/ attention / appreciation, so there is an active / virtuous activity to feel these pleasures.

Are they then all kinetic pleasures ?

Or what is when I am not aware of the absence of pain, is the absence of pain than a static ( kastatematic) pleasure ?

Or is this a false categorizing ?
Do I need a constant/active awareness for pleasure?

Is there such a thing as nonrational and rational pleasure?
As the 1. comes automatic from the body like eating tasteful, the 2. from eg. Gratefulness/ appreciation ?