Posts by Matteng

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.

Quote from Cassius

Quote from Kalosyni

Ultimately they can be summed up as "do no harm" both to others and to oneself. Non-harming brings about a good life free from troubles.

What? Define the goal purely negatively? If that were the case Epicurus could have stopped at "freedom from pain" without ever referring to pleasure (?)

Cassius

Good point, more positively would be to pursue philia and pleasure but also the non-harming can mean to take active actions for example to help not someone who needs help und we could easily help could be seen as harming someone. Is a „not-decision“ sometimes also a decision ?

@Eikadistes 
Great work, especially how you turn topics for which Epicureans are often criticized and are seen as weaknesses in strengths:

-the arts against what really matters

- political engagement vs civic engagement and against manipulation

You go very deep, I also like Philodemus he is for me what for the Stoics is Seneca

Have you ever written an essay on Stoicism vs. Epicurean Philosophy?
I whish I could find such an essay from someone like you with your knowledge and depth 🤗

Wow I have read almost the same books the last years 🤗

And had similiar experiences.

Th Campridge Companion so good but yes some hard to read chapters which are lesser interesting for me.

„The Swerve“ I haven‘t read yet. It is a little bit older or ? Is its content still intetresting and has valid ideas/ views about Epicurean Philosophy ? Would you recommend it ? Maybe I would read it next.

Yes thank you 😅
It is from podcasts/essays.
Today in a podcast it was about how important experience of suffering is to grow.
I first thought this would be against Epicurean Philosophy, but then I realized: No, for greater benefit, it is recommend. For greater suffering it would be unprudent…

In the past I often read/hear:

Stoicism = Stress management

Epicureanism = Stress avoidance

And that Suffering belongs to Life, and is needed for growing and that it is bad to shun pain.

And that Epicurean philosophy would teach to shun pain.

Stoics train discomfort, for they pain is instrumental to progress to Virtue.

Stoics train Memento Malorum and Exposition to fear and pain makes them stronger and Exposition therapy is very successful.

From Epicurus there is often his method mentioned that he counters his pain on his last day with the pleasures of his memorys about philosophy with friends and that this is the main way in Epicurean Philosophy to counter pain.

What do you think about these statements ?

I think they are one-sided, and a false dichotomy. Both methods can help and Stoics are not more courageous than Epicureans and the benefit of choosing kinds of pain is even in the epitome of Epicurean Ethics the letter of Menoeceus:

„…(129)And since pleasure is the first good and natural to us, for this very reason we do not choose every pleasure, but sometimes we pass over many pleasures, when greater discomfort accrues to us as the result of them: and similarly we think many pains better than pleasures, since a greater pleasure comes to us when we have endured pains for a long time. Every pleasure then because of its natural kinship to us is good, yet not every pleasure is to be chosen: even as every pain also is an evil, yet not all are always of a nature to be avoided.

….“

Epicurus' Letter to Menoeceus

Yes, the only good thing in the control dichotomy in my view is to don’t worry about unchangeable things and to focus on what you can do.

This is often seen as one of the greatest benefit of Stoicism but it was first in Epicurus Philosophy but without providental goodness for necessity.

Also there is the own agency stated as a source of causal power besides chance and necessity:

Letter to Menoeceus

„[133] Who, then, is superior in thy judgement to such a man? He holds a holy belief concerning the gods, and is altogether free from the fear of death. He has diligently considered the end fixed by nature, and understands how easily the limit of good things can be reached and attained, and how either the duration or the intensity of evils is but slight. Destiny, which some introduce as sovereign over all things, he laughs to scorn, affirming rather that some things happen of necessity, others by chance, others through our own agency. For he sees that necessity destroys responsibility and that chance or fortune is inconstant; whereas our own actions are free, and it is to them that praise and blame naturally attach“

Epicurus' Letter to Menoeceus - Epicureanfriends.com

www.epicureanfriends.com

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 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

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