Posts by Matteng

Hi, Welcome Kungi ,

I also come from the Stoic camp

I think the Stoics get a problem when defining "Virtue". Between the lines you can read from them, that virtue is good because (tranquility, eudaimonia, harmony ..... (other things like virtue itself).

But if you ask a Stoic directly, this response will come ( virtue for virtue ).

So I tried to find out what there is the core for them.

I´ve got: "Virtue is the rational and social thing which we should do."

Ok but what exactly is it ?

In a book from Donald Robertson ("Stoicism and Art of Happiness" )there it goes a little bit deeper, the answer is: "The beneficial and honourable".

And there it ends.

And for their "indifferents" (preferred/dispreferred): Choosing according the natural value.

By the way pleasure & pain is for Stoics complete indifferent. (In the past I thought pleasure preferred and pain would be dispreferred).

So here is the danger, that someone else will teach you what is "natural" (and the Stoics were often wrong about that, like the church ).

And so these Stoic teachers could use the abstraction and tell their students what is "natural, rational and social".

Like priest who define right/wrong and sin for their people.

And there is no natural limit in abstract objects.

Stoics & Epicureans could only come near each other when the "Beneficial&Honourable" would be equaled with "Pleasure".

(Pleasurable could also be fulfilling activities, character traits, personal values )

This would make sense, for example for health. The self-preservation is beneficial and pleasurable and threats to that are painful.

So I would ask a Stoic: Is there really a "virtue" which involves short and longterm pain and no pleasure. ? And is still a virtue ?

Maybe they would answer: Fulfilling your duty is important but brings maybe no pleasure.

->Response( If the duty isn´t abstract but really important): So not fulfilling the duty would bring pain, so must be avoided. Fulfilling this duty is there a Pleasure, it removes disturbance in the soul.

Conclusion: The virtuous life = pleasant life and vice versa. If Pleasure and real value is bound with these virtues.

Thanks for the response.

So all levels could be compatiple with Epicurean Philosophy (EP), it depends on the content.

And not just only "things/objects" could be desired but also " fullfilling activities".

So values as "self-sufficiency" and even character traits and virtue or virtuous action can be desired when it brings pleasure.

This I thought in the past would be rejected in EP.

But when I include such things and broaden my horizon of pleasure, than many objections against EP fall apart.

For example the often discussed pleasure machine/pill idea:

I would reject it because living a real life with self-sufficiency, agency, freedom, possibility to use virtue, real friends, real experiences and fulfilling activities gives real, sustainable, more and reliable pleasure.

Hi,

I am interested in the subject of desire and pleasure especially in light of modern science / psychology and the Epicurean Philosophy.

I know Maslow´s pyramide, which considers not only basic desires but goes on till self improvement and personal values, transcendence/knowledge.

In the past I used to associate the lower levels with Epicurean philosophy and the higher with Stoic philosophy, the classical prejudice I think (Yes sorry I am a Convert from the Stoic camp and have to disentangle me from this system ).

But I think Epicurus maybe would embrace them but warn for the higher levels.

Maybe the lower levels (Deficiency Needs ) would be the "natural & necessary" desires

The higher levels (Growth Needs) "natural & unnecessary" ?

But if my survival is saved I could go through self-improvement (if that´s pleasure for me )?

But for example for self-improvement, learning new languages could be a desire without a limit, so -> unnecessary, but natural to have such desires ?

Or is this a complete wrong take ? Because there are the virtues.

In what category is the desire to become more virtuous ?

Or do I make here a category error ? For all desire´s we need virtue. And here lurks the mistake to confuse the goal (pleasure) with the means (virtue).

Virtue is the greatest -> means <- for a happy life

Maslow's hierarchy of needs - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What are your opinions about this subject ?

Thanks for the responses.

2 things come now to my mind.

1. There are still wrong prejudices about Epicurean Philosophy floating around (especially in stoic groups)

2. Modern Stoicism tries to become more natural and borrows parts of Epicurean ideas.

For example, that "non-wise" Stoics can feel joy or between the lines you can read that virtue brings good things like tranquility or improves the common good but very fast there comes the statement "virtue is its own reward".

I thought that pleasure was at least a "preferred indifferent" and pain "dispreferred" for them. But now I read that pleasure/pain is complete indifferent for Stoics.

And in their "physics" most modern Stoics give up pantheism, the Stoic god or teleology.

But ok, it´s good to find more truthful beliefs, so congratulations

Hi,

In the last time I am interested in the subject of Feeling and Emotions and the differences between the practical philosophies and the Epicurean approach.

What do you think of this article explaining and comparing the Cynics, Stoics and Epicurean attitude to that ?

The Dispassionate Life by Margaret Graver

This talk was given at Stoicon in Toronto on October 14, 2017. The topic of the conference was  “Stoicism in the Workplace.” I would like to thank Don…

modernstoicism.com

It sounds that Epicureans don´t look Pain in the face, like a form of positiv thinking.

My points: First you should do something to change painfull situations (and question the underlying belief and the hedonic calculus). If that is not possible than cognitive methods could help, like memorizing pleasure or to change the attention.

The Stoics method sounds good in the first place to change the belief or value of external things / detachment.

But is devalueing really good ?

The information about value is necessary in life I think and in the end it is like with the Cynics, I feel no affection for example for friends, family, society or to my body (ills) or helpful things (necessary and natural externals) and so feel no pain when loosing it.

But that´s manipulating the signals from nature (and coginitive intuition). So the Stoic Justice is a contradiction or ? To love humanity, friends and so on but don´t value it and get detached.

And that not for pleasure, ataraxia or eudaimonia or a better society (because than virtue would be instrumental for them) but only to value virtue in itself

So they only value their habit and virtue and values ; in which they value only their virtue ?

So they value nothing ?

It´s like the buddhist saying: "What distinguishes a dead from an enlightened one ? The enlightened one is warm...."

(I was on a buddhist path, but it´s not my goal in life to become a warm corpse )

Thank you for your responses.

It´s a pleasure to find a active forum like this

I think this point of values in Epicurean philosophy should be emphasized.

Because the prejudice in stoic communities goes like this:

Stoic: Hero who embraces every problem / challenge.

Epicurean: avoiding pain like a weak coward.

In reality the Epicurean decides what engagement is worth it and takes the emotions as short/fast information and the stoics often devalue and detach from thinks that they have no impact on them.

Yes when I value nothing in life, then I have no fear/grief to lose something and desire nothing, but then I've already lost everything and am like a dead machine.

I know that this could even be an prejudice against the stoic philosophy because with "indifferent" they mean moral indifference but it´s a probability/tendency for devaluation.

See Epictetus doctrine of "no grief for a lost son".

But ok this doctrine was a summary from one of his pupil and has maybe another meaning like (giving back to fate/nature).

Or like in Christianity when someone was lost, he/she is in "heaven" or a "better place". But that would imply other things (why then not going direct to the "better place".)

Hello,

For the context: I ´ve moved from the stoic camp to the epicurean and I am learning the Epicurean principles.

In metaphysics and epistemology the Epicurean have in my opionion the better and more realistic approach.

Now I dive more into the ethics.

In ethics I wonder if Pleasure involves personal values besides the "pure bodily" pleasures.

(There is a citation which says: Beside the pleasures of seeing, hearing, tasting, touching... .I would not know any pleasure)

But I think I get it wrong.

Where are personal values in the Epicurean pleasure concept if they are there ?

Because I see virtue as a means to fulfill these values which give me pleasure (maybe thats the answer, a wide interpratation of pleasure ? )

Beside the pure sense-pleasures, I value for example that:

-I am not addicted to something/someone

-value friends/familiy, progress in society,

-have compassiong for humans and animals

-love to learn new things and philosophy (like Epicurus), learning about nature, value/ like to improve abilities.

Are that "pleasures of the soul" ?

Or are these values part of "virtue" ? That virtue gives pleasure ?

Hi,

I come from the stoic camp and cross over not as an scout but as an deserter ( based on a Senece quote )

I think these are the main points for the popularity:

- There is a divine rest in nature (like in the deep respect of Einstein (see Einsteins God, natural forces/laws, string theory, M theory .....)

- Success of modern Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

- Rationality science friendly

- Social, Connection of all humans, nature, political responsibility ....

But I think 1. all these aspects are even in Epicurean philosophy but more realistic/naturalistic/scientific.

For example

- a deep respect for nature but without divinity/God/fate/plan;

- taking reason to question thoughts/actions/judgments and using psychologic techniques when useful for pleasure etc. not everything is an opinion (like in CBT );

- Rational (+ importance of empirism/sense data) and social (friendly, justice is important, but not metaphysical, so more realistic )

And 2. It is so good that Epicurus binds pleasure and virtue together, with pleasure as the end:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example:

Say there is a competion between a Stoic and Epicurean in staying out in the cold in winter.

Why does the Stoic this ? -> For the sake of virtue ( courage, moderation)

Why does the Epicurean do this ? -> Maybe for better health, sustain pleasure and choose a little pain for it.

So let´s say after 2 hours a medical practitioner would come and says, that a longer stay would risk your health, you should stop that.

=> The Epicurean uses his prudence/wisdom to choose that it´s enough for the pleasure of health and stops it.

=> The Stoic: Health ? It´s a preferred indifferent, to train virtue like (courage/endurance/moderation ) is the highest value (Stoic wisdom). But when to stop ?

Only when virtue can´t be trained any further, maybe by fainting, loosing consciousness .... ?

Or dying because of freezing ? But ok life/death is even an indifferent...... Virtue is the highest goal.

So the Stoic would be irrational ?

Stoic: "But not so fast : Even the Epicurean has to use prudence/wisdom/virtue for his decision to stop because it is in complete control, pain / pleasure / health are not... And pain will not say you when it is enough freezing, so why concentrate on any other in life as virtue ?."

Epicurean: "Yes, but my prudence values life/pleasure/health as goods, not virtue, because virtue as an instrument has no limit to calculate on, it is never enough it is abstract. I have trained endurance, the virtues and my health, you can loose everything if you freeze to death for virtue, on pleasure/pain and related goods you can calculate your optimum and limits".

= > So to live pleasantly you need to live virtuously and vice versa.

-------------------------------------------------

What to you think ? Have I understand it right ?