Posts by Matteng

Hi,

I have found a video about Alex O´Conners ethical view he calls "Emotivism". In my view his attitude is half Epicurean.

I think it is the same or similiar view like Epicurus in stating that moral value like good/ bad is in the feelings (Canon pleasure/pain). He makes some good points for it

At approximately minute 14 - 16 I think he talks about a different view which I identify with the Stoic vs. Epicurean view of Judgment / Emotion:

The Stoic View: a) There is an objective moral judgment (good/bad) and then b) there comes the Emotion

Vs: (I think more Epicurean and Emotivism view a) = b) The moral judgment (good/bad) is the Emotion.

This reminds me of this in the letter to Menoeceus:

[129] And for this cause we call pleasure the beginning and end of the blessed life. For we recognize pleasure as the first good innate in us, and from pleasure we begin every act of choice and avoidance, and to pleasure we return again, using the feeling as the standard by which we judge every good."

Epicurus' Letter to Menoeceus - Epicureanfriends.com

www.epicureanfriends.com

What are your thoughts ?

A strict rule based decision making I find difficult, we need always sober reasoning/prudence to judge/feel the consequences and the context to make good choices/avoidances.

But for orientation I see it currently like this table:

Epicurean Necessary Desires — with Urgency Level

• Level 1 (survival) must be handled first — you cannot philosophize or rest if starving.
• Level 2 (aochlēsia) becomes important once survival is secure — it removes bodily noise.
• Level 3 (eudaimonia) is the least urgent but most important — it completes the good life.
  

→ Epicureans may sacrifice survival (Level 1) to protect Level 3 (friendship, integrity), because Level 3 has the highest value, even if it is least urgent.

I want to add for limit of pain ( maybe more for slight pain or mental pain ) the hedonic tresdmill for pain, with also Epicurean advice in it :

Hedonic Treadmill

The hedonic treadmill is the idea that an individual's level of happiness, after rising or falling in response to positive or negative life events, ultimately…

www.psychologytoday.com

So I think now we can consult the worst health systems in the world: Suffering ? Wait, take drugs or go dying 🙃🤣😅

DaveT On one point Epicureanism recognizes Pain as the core evil, on the other it wants to give help, ideas, techniques against it. So I can understand the irritation that than it is stated that Pain is not really a problem (maybe only meant for the Epicurean Sage or an irrational Fear of Pain ? )

What is your attitude towards pain? Or rather, what would be a healthy or resilient attitude towards pain in life?

How justified do you see the fear of pain ?

I ´ve read even an article that for natural/necessary desires it is right for an Epicurean to fear Pain for such desires. Otherwise one of the natural/necessary desires is the desire for eudaimonia/ataraxia, so to have no or very less fears.

Is the potential amount of pain in life too great ? What should we conclude then from this insight ?

What would you advice ?

My thoughts regarding Pain:

1. Difference between faculty of Pain (and Pleasure ) and Painful things/situation/ ideas.
The faculty is there to protect us, born from evolutionary self-preservation.

2. Unnecessary Pain:

Empty ideas, worry, fears of superstitius, empty cultural ideas, fear of death, fear of (eternal and unendurable )pain( one aim of the 4. tetrapharmacon I think).

=> help of Epicurean physics

3. Avoidable Pain:

Avoidance of dangers/ painful situations….

=> help of Epicurean ethics/virtue (especially prudence, justice, friendship)

4. Endurable Pain:

Non-Avoidable Pain, Painful things/action for less pain or more pleasure.

=> help of Epicurean ethics/virtue (especially courage, temperance, justice, friendship)

5. Limits of Pain:

Hedonic Adaptation for Pain, Unendurable Pain…Death is for that the end. There is no eternal hell. Considering this that there is a last way out even could encourage to take greater pain.

Yes for example Ciceros and the Stoics define the only good Virtue and bad Vice and that the good must be something that always must be chosen, the bad always avoided. And their indifferents are choiceworthy or not. Interesting that there it is complete the opposite on the first view.

On a further digging I see there is a calculation and degree between good/bad for a higher good (Pleasant life ) in Epicureanism whereby for Cicero/ Stoics good/ bad are absolutes

I also have read it the 2. time some months ago. I can recommend it when interested in a more academic approach and not all chapters were interesting for me but 80% were.

But some chapters contain more wisdom then I thought on the first look. For example the chapter of poets( infos about Lucretius and Philodemus ) or about language which I thought first would be boring but then show crucial differences for example between Platon and Epicurus ( how words natural evolved by using simuliar sounds in groups vs they come from perfect forms in another world or are top down defined and used )

Yes they want get rid of bad emotions. The good emotions relate ( depends on sources ) only about Virtue or what partakes in Virtue.

In a strict sense only the Stoic Sage has good Emotions, all others only propatheia( bodily unconscious Pre-Emotions) , and bad Emotions. Whereby there are text quotes from Epictetus and Seneca that progress to Virtue means also progress to good Emotions ( Eupatheia ) but don’t know what that exactly means.

Martin , yes in core the hedonic calculus, an yes maybe a better word for the difference would be arational ( I have never read it ) for unconscious or without needed reason and irrational (often negative seen ).

Eikadistes , yes the difference between the Faculty of pleasure/pain and Pleasant/Painful Things/situations is crucial, that will play a role below in my post you will see.

Kalosyni , thank you, now it would be interesting to go deeper in this subject of Feeling/Emotion in regard how to value them and what exactly is to avoid or pursue (Feeling, things, situations)

In discussion with Stoics I notice that they would agree with the article and would say that the Epicureans are the one who doesn´t accept Pain and try to avoid it.
Epicureans say Stoics doesn´t accept or want avoid (Painful/harmful) Emotions.

How can we get there more clear ?

I could imagine this would be a response of each school:

- Start of fictional discussion between the schools -

Epicureans: We want not fight the Feelings like Pain, but the circumstances/causes. We want to change the situation, things, relationships, ideas/views, the faculty of pain/pleasure and the prudent reflection of them and judgment with our feelings is our main way of life.

-> Stoic objection: one cause for Feeling pain is your Faculty of Pain, wouldn´t you take Tranquilizers for getting rid of pain your greatest evil ? Or when you want (have a desire/wish for) that a friend is getting well, do you want it for the pleasure (desire satisfaction/whish fulfilling) than a pill who let forget you your friend or his illness could do the same ? Or do you want it indepentend of the consequence feelings ?

Stoics: We only want to root out passions / harmful Emotions not for the Painful Feeling (that is an indifferent for us ) but because it dims our rationality/sociality so our human nature and our Character, our only good (Virtue or Progress to Virtue) and we do more harmful Things to us and others.

-> Epicurean objection: So you value your human Nature/Character/Virtue yourself, others and Passions/harmful Emotions damages these ? The idea of this damage is "mental pain" that lies on the core of your judgement. You "want/like" to live in Agreement with Nature/Logos/Virtue/Human Nature, that is an affection, that is in core in the end a Feeling of Pleasure/Pain.

- End of fictional discussion between the schools -

So that are my currently not finished and Maybe confused ideas about that, what to do with that ?

First I see is that it is all about mental (self caused ) Emotions, bodily pain/ pleasure is out. In Stoicism this are indifferents and in control of fate/nature/logos.

When I understood Philodemus right, I think the Epicurean view would only match with the Stoic view when the Emotion

1) has harmful consequences ( pleasure then is not choiceworthy for example )
2) is irrational, based on empty believe
3) is based on unnecessary desire

In short when the Emotions lead to more pain than pleasure.

From wikipedia:

Distress (lupē)

Distress is an irrational contraction, or a fresh opinion that something bad is present, at which people think it right to be depressed.

Fear (phobos)

Fear is an irrational aversion, or avoidance of an expected danger.

Lust (epithumia)

Lust is an irrational desire, or pursuit of an expected good but in reality bad.

Delight (hēdonē)

Delight is an irrational swelling, or a fresh opinion that something good is present, at which people think it right to be elated.

Two of these passions (distress and delight) refer to emotions currently present, and two of these (fear and lust) refer to emotions directed at the future.^[9] Thus there are just two states directed at the prospect of good and evil, but subdivided as to whether they are present or future:^[10]

Hi,

How do you see the Stoic theory/ view of the passions/ pathei/apatheia/ eupathei and hoe differ it in the Epicurean view ? I know Philodemus did there much.

Stoic passions - Wikipedia

When examples are stated that hedonism leads to „bad“ outcomes, this „bad“ is instead the proof for hedonism. Because all value judgements are based on feelings. And prudent hedonists choose more good than bad outcomes / consequences.

Examples for hedonist defenders:

And sometimes I think there are often false dichotomies or strawmens accussed against hedonism or Epicureanism like Virtue vs Pleasure.

For this subject for example it is not only means vs Ends but we can judge/value (with our feelings) the means and the ends.

For example the horrific idea of murdering 1 healthy person and spending his/her organs to save the lifes of 5 other persons.

To allow this we would loose security and the right for life (which is a social institution based on social contract) and no one would want to be the spender.

Or another example is when Kant was asked if to lie could be ok when saving lifes. He denied it and gave (ironically ) the reason that would lead society in confusion and destroy trust between people. What he not recognized is that his reasoning is based on the utility ( trust, no confusing).

You have only to ask many times "Why" an Deontologists/Kantian and you get to their core reasonings which they have to admit => you value everything with Pleasure/Pain/Feeling/Utility

Very important subject for me, but have no final conclusions on it. Interesting for me is also the difference between the Stoic and Epicurean view.

Seems that Epicureans focus more on pleasure/pain and the Stoics more on negative Emotions.

Epicureans: Reduce Pain

Stoics: Reduce Pathe negative Emotions/Passion based on judgment

Especially mental Pleasure/Pain is interesting when the Emotions depend on our judgments.

The Stoics are very successful in CBT but I think the Epicurean could that too with the contribution of Philodemus who did much in the field of therapy.

Is pleasure/pain the core of our values ? And what does it mean when someone values Pain like Ice bathing or to challenge onself ?
Maybe more levels of Pain/Pleasure ? Can we change Pleasure/Pain with reason ? Judgment ? In some cases Epicurus would agree and has CBT insights like the fear of death, fear of superstition, fear of pain, harmful desire…

Hirams Essays on Epicurean Virtue are so good, I come many time back to him when this subject confuses me or Stoics try to convinced about their view:

On Epicurean Virtue | Society of Friends of Epicurus

Dialogue On Virtue | Society of Friends of Epicurus

Philodemus’ Method of Studying and Cultivating the Virtues | Society of Friends of Epicurus

But how to grow Virtue and the Pleasant Life in a good way ?

What I read from the Epicurean texts:

-> Improve Prudence:

- Sober Reasoning

- Hedonic Calculus

- Reflection of Desires / Values

- Eleminating unnecessary fears/ pain ( with a realistic world view )

- Train to Endure Pains/ Fears for greater Pleasure / reducing greater Pain/Fears

- Try active to be more other regarding / altruistic ( philia/friendship ) but in a prudent way.

- In best case everyone is your friend but that is not possible in this world, here live psychopaths and humans with harmful dispositions, there is no natural law, cosmopolitism or human rights who protect you. So justice is prudent and sometimes to avoid people or protect from them:

John Allen Chau - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Reminds me on the Epictetus quote for Epicurus: "Be not deceived; be not seduced and mistaken. There is no natural tie between reasonable beings. Believe me. Those who say otherwise mislead and impose upon you“

Patrikios

The Stoics would see Virtue as internal and Pleasure mostly as external when it is caused from objects. But how Virtue is seen by others reminds me in Cicero wurh his „ heros of the past“ who define Virtue.

Yes I see both, pleasure in the Virtuous disposition ( like gratefulness or feeling philia/friendship, or love instead of hate, envy … ) and in getting things desires better.

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 ? 🙂🙃