Posts by Pacatus

Just a note on personal “context”: Epicurean philosophy offers – to me – well-prescribed guardrails against my innate Cyrenaic instincts, and a cogent, practical countervailing philosophy vis-a-vis my Kantian/Stoic upbringing/programming. A late discovery on both counts. Everything else is secondary (though clearly intellectually interesting – and therefore a source of pleasure ).

@ Cassius : With regard to the gods, I agree (but there remains the idealist-versus-realist question…). With regard to pleasure=absence of pain, that formula is somewhat dependent on the context of Epicurean philosophy (in which there is no “neutral” state) – much, perhaps, as pathe in Stoicism needs to be understood, formulaically, as something other than eupathe.

But – on his deathbed, Epicurus was clearly in pain. He was able to find compensating pleasure (and happiness) elsewhere. That is part of the power of the philosophy.

__________________________

In that context , I think we stop trying for non-contextual understandings generally. A famous (infamous?) Wittgenstein quote on terminology: "Don't look for the meaning; look for the use."

Quote from Don

In modern Western culture, this is what happiness means for most people: a fizzy, effervescent quality that many people see as inherently short-lived. "Are you happy?" means, it seems to me, to most people to convey a bubbly, giddy feeling

I disagree (not what I generally mean – even without much reflection). And I disagree that there is (or can be) some non-contextual definition of “happiness” that can be applied except in the most abstract of cases. The same for “pleasure” – really no less problematic than “happiness.”

I think the search for some philosophical, context-free precision in such language will always fail – except in the narrow hallways of academia. In this, I continue to follow Wittgenstein’s insights on “ordinary language.”

With that said, “happiness” and “well-being” (as opposed to “ill-being”) are not – to my mind – unrelated. And, as has been discussed many times, that embraces the mental as well as (and maybe even more so than) the physical – e.g., Epicurus on his deathbed.

And, in Epicurean philosophy, “happiness” (and well-being, for that matter) is related to pleasure – the pleasurable/pleasant life. As opposed to, say, Stoic virtue.

Don , You and I have disagreed on this before. I have thought of eudaimonia as “happy well-being.” I continue to do so, as I still think they are related. A disagreement among friends : and one that itself may depend on context.

Oh -- and kudos on the Monty Python reference!

_____________________

I have not addressed “meaning.” Another broadly-defined term. And, to my mind, far more fraught than “happiness” – which is something that I feel.

An interesting article on scientific studies of corruption in the English-language edition of El Pais. (I’ve been lately reading a few non-US news outlets, to get away from any “suffocation” from strictly local views.)

What science reveals about our tendency toward corruption

A bribery experiment involving people from 18 countries reveals that the phenomenon is largely subject to circumstance

english.elpais.com

This particular quote caught my attention (from an Epicurean point of view): “The prestigious researcher Robert Klitgaard summarized it by saying that corruption is not a crime of passion, but a crime of calculation. And people who choose to be corrupt are making very explicit calculations — namely, how much profit they can make, how likely they are to get caught and the consequences if they are.”

But there are some other views, that indicate pathe might also be involved ...

On re-reading this whole thread, I have some (possibly disjointed) thoughts:

1. Maybe we should allow all the meaning possibilities of δίκαιος, and allow our translation/understanding to rest on context (such as “justice” or “civilized behavior” or …). The same for the concept of justice itself: it is not synonymous with broader terms such as “rightness” or “moral” (which I generally take in a social context, as opposed to ethics – but sometimes they are treated as synonymous). And I think the appropriate limits of that term, in line with Epicurean philosophy, are well-delineated here.
2. Along the lines of Cassius reference to “malum in se” (or “bonum in se”), I think there can be some provisional Epicurean affirmation of something like those notions (excluding idealisms such as Plato’s or Kant’s). And I suggest appeal can be made to prolepsis.
3. We have talked about prolepsis as an innate ability for pattern recognition. But I think that is too narrow. I have used “intuition” – as “a. the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference; and b. immediate apprehension or cognition.” (Merriam-Webster)
4. Although that faculty will vary individually, I take it as an innate hereditary ability across humanity – as much as the other criteria for knowledge: sensation and feeling. Perhaps evolutionarily. And I think there are broadly common (though not absolute or universal) prolepseis (which themselves may give rise to pathe) including moral questions – e.g., the raping of an infant. Even in a group that had no “justice compact” regarding that behavior. And I don’t think that is strictly a matter of an individual’s proclivity for pleasure or choice-worthiness.
5. Therefore, prolepsis could provide a natural foundation for some common perspectives on what people might think of as “malum in se” or “bonum in se” – without any appeal to idealisms. Universal/absolute? No. But a broad generality based on a commonly evolved faculty.

All of this really came in a rush of mental “hypertexting,” so might not be so carefully laid out …

_________________________

Aside: There was some discussion about how broad a community/society might be appropriate to consider – e.g. the polis, the nation, etc. I would suggest that, in our highly connected modern world, the old Stoic idea of kosmopolites is not totally out of bounds: trying to hide out with your select group of friends – or even a metaphorically walled-in nation state – may not, ultimately, offer all that much security. And I’m not much into being a bread-and-water-in-a-cave survivalist.

I have finally “bit the nickel,” and purchased this book. (I remember the great podcast with Dr. Boeri.) I have friends (albeit scattered geographically) who are under threat in the face of recent political developments – not because of anything they’ve done, but because of who they are. On the one hand, I have found it impossible to remain uninvolved (though in far, far less measure than involvement years ago); on the other, I have felt increasing anxiety – that is not relieved by trying to ignore the facts on the ground (even while avoiding dire projection of what may not, in the end, come about). ‘Nuff said about all that …

I have actually found some consolation in Marcus Aurelius (while disagreeing with the Stoic underpinning of his philosophical wrestling with himself: what the Meditations were really about). But I still want to better connect with what there might be of Epicurean political philosophy. To that end, I have been thus far searching the web. I did find this old essay by Cassius helpful and encouraging: https://newepicurean.com/the-example-of…ows-us-the-way/ .

I had recently read some claims that one of the reasons the ancients watered their wine was because of its high alcoholic content, compared with our (unfortified) wines today. This appears to be false. (My wife, who made wonderful, dry country wines, also said so. )

There has been mention on here before about Epicurus, as he was dying, drinking undiluted wine.

There may have been other reasons for watering wine, though, in addition to concerns of sobriety.

Wine throughout history: What were ancient wines really like?

www.wineinvestment.com

Was ancient wine more alcoholic than modern wine?

Because the ancient Greeks and Romans mixed their water with wine, it is often assumed that their wines were considerably more alcoholic than modern ones. Is…

www.badancient.com

Note: I do not water my wine; my wife sometimes does (and she imbibes infrequently).

“Even cases of drunk elephants have been observed. What motivates animals to consume a substance that can be harmful, pose a danger, or reduce their ability to handle predators? The study’s authors acknowledge that they are not entirely sure but dismiss the idea of accidental ingestion as the primary cause. Instead, the widespread presence of yeast and ethanol, coupled with genetic adaptations for metabolization, suggests more deliberate consumption. …

“‘On the cognitive side, ideas have been put forward that ethanol can trigger the endorphin and dopamine system, which leads to feelings of relaxation that could have benefits in terms of sociality,’ said Anna Bowland, the first author of the research.”

Drunk butterflies and inebriated elephants: Animals also consume alcohol

From non-human primates to beetles, dozens of species intentionally ingest ethanol, and even have special enzymes to metabolize it

english.elpais.com

(Italics mine.)

~ ~ ~

In other words: pleasure. Sometimes pursued beyond healthy bounds – and, for us, individual tastes and tolerances (some people have none) need to be recognized and respected, as well as recognizing that drunkenness is always dangerous and debilitating.

And, of course: “No pleasure is a bad thing in itself: but the means which produce some pleasures [can] bring with them disturbances many times greater than the pleasures.” (PD08)

Bracketed addition mine, based on Don’s analysis and translation here: RE: Best Translation of PD08 To Feature At EpicureanFriends.com

Cassius

You're right. And, in using that adjective, I was imputing some intention to obfuscate or sway with false logic. My bad.

Quote from Don

I know I'm alive

Just as an (hopefully not too distracting) aside: Wittgenstein argued that, in normal everyday discourse* (as opposed to academic philosophy) that “know” is, at best, superfluous. In the Philosophical Investigations, he imagines a passerby who overhears a discussion in which W’s interlocutor says: “I know that’s a tree!” (Note the emphasis.) W says to the puzzled passerby: “Don’t worry. This fellow isn’t crazy. We’re just talking philosophy.”

Imagine again the addition of emphasis: “I know I’m alive.” How could there be any doubt? The same with the other examples. If there were doubt, to what could you appeal?

And this is where I think the Meno Paradox becomes a sophistic misapplication of deductive syllogistic – hence my post about inductive versus deductive logic.

[W’s On Certainty was an extended exploration of this question, in response to G.E. Moore.]

_____________________

* Which W argued was adequate to most of our everyday communication, and that academic philosophy (epistemology) often confused what is apparent.

When I heard the learn’d astronomer,
When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me,
When I was shown the charts and diagrams, to add, divide, and measure them,
When I sitting heard the astronomer where he lectured with much applause in the lecture-room,
How soon unaccountable I became tired and sick,
Till rising and gliding out I wander’d off by myself,
In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,
Look’d up in perfect silence at the stars.

– Walt Whitman

~ ~ ~

I think we can take the word “mystical” metaphorically here (or relating to feelings of awe, and not necessarily supernatural). I recall that Whitman was at least acquainted with Epicurean philosophy.

Not that scientific (and philosophical) inquiry and debate are not valuable (and sometimes pleasurable) – but that we, in the end, live in the day-to-day “real world”. Feeling pleasure in the “moist night air” and the starry expanse overhead. Where we make daily decisions about how we are to live: how to weave a life enriched by pleasure whilst minimizing pain and anxiety; how to celebrate simplicity; how best to love the ones we love; how to support our friends in troubled times; etc.

And that is, for me, where the meat and marrow of philosophy are.

And, yes, of course: “A man cannot dispel his fear about the most important matters if he does not know what is the nature of the universe, but suspects the truth of some mythical story. So that, without natural science, it is not possible to attain our pleasures unalloyed.” (PD 12)

And: “We must not pretend to study philosophy, but study it in reality, for it is not the appearance of health that we need, but real health.” (VS 54)

And: “Vain is the word of a philosopher which does not heal any suffering of man. For just as there is no profit in medicine if it does not expel the diseases of the body, so there is no profit in philosophy either, if it does not expel the suffering of the mind.” (U221)

~ ~ ~

And, Don : If I came off as defensive, mea culpa. Didn’t mean to.

Don

I admit I was not responding to Chalmers per se. Just to the notion that there are no such “hard questions” (or that they are readily answerable by our current understandings of neurobiology). For the rest, my post – and the example of intentionality – stands. (Do I need to reaffirm that I don't ascribe to any "supernaturalism"?)

Quote from Cassius

The main problem posed by the Meno question is a logical one, and so I would say that it has to be met on logical grounds.

In terms of inductive (evidence-based – as opposed to purely deductive) logic, current evidence is indicative of the most fruitful lines of inquiry. Such inquiry may or may not be falsified by future evidence. I’m not sure that the ancients (including the Stoics) had yet grasped the difference between deductive and inductive logic – but I suspect that Epicurus had at least an inkling …

Don :

I don’t think that one has to go to some supernatural/mystical “woo” to recognize that there are hard questions of consciousness – which is probably worth a thread of its own. For example: intentionality. Whence my actual intention to write these words, with the notion that I am consciously attempting to convey some meaning? And this also goes to that fraught question of so-called “free will” (a phrase I have come to dislike, and for which I would offer alternatives such as “intentional – if constrained – agency”). Is such intentionality a kind of epiphenomenon? Or just an illusion?

That is probably all worth a thread of its own. And there have been extended discussions on here of “free will.”

But, as Cassius argues (I think), such questions are secondary (even if profoundly interesting) to how I can (as a layperson) draw on Epicurean philosophy to live my life. In that framework, I assume intentionality and agency because (to draw on Robert Parker’s Spenser detective character ) the alternative doesn't get me anywhere.

~ ~ ~

Vatican Saying 9 comes to mind: “Necessity is an evil, but there is no necessity to live under the control of necessity.”

“I had fallen victim to the fallacy of the 'growing edge;' the belief that only the very frontier of scientific advance counted; that everything that had been left behind by that advance was faded and dead. … There is not a discovery in science, however revolutionary, however sparkling with insight, that does not arise out of what went before.”

– Isaac Asimov

Happy Birthday, Kalosyni and Joshua!

Wouldn't appeal to some common prolepsis (on the question of gods’ existence) be subject to the ad populum fallacy?

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

Here is a poetic rendition I did for myself sometime back:

No fear of gods, ghosts or fates;
nor death’s bare naught that awaits.

Simple pleasures come easy to gain;
a happy soul serves, travails to wane.

The last line is intended to reflect Epicurus' own tapping into memories and his friends whilst in great physical pain. But I still think that line might be improved upon (whilst retaining the rhyme ). Suggestions welcome.

{The transitive usage of "wane" is, I think, archaic.}

Happy Twentieth everyone!

I came upon this fable recently during some cursory browsing, and thought it might also be helpful for others …

A Fable

Once upon a time, a woman moved to a cave in the mountains to study with a guru. She wanted, she said, to learn everything there was to know. The guru supplied her with stacks of books and left her alone so she could study.

Every morning, the guru returned to the cave to monitor the woman's progress. In his hand, he carried a heavy wooden cane. Each morning, he asked her the same question: “Have you learned everything there is to know yet?" Each morning, her answer was the same. "No." she said, "I haven't." The guru would then strike her over the head with his cane.

This scenario repeated itself for months. One day the guru entered the cave, asked the same question, heard the same answer, and raised his cane to hit her in the same way, but the woman grabbed the cane from the guru, stopping his assault in midair.

Relieved to end the daily batterings but fearing reprisal, the woman looked up at the guru. To her surprise, the guru smiled. "Congratulations," he said, "you have graduated. You know now everything you need to know."

"How's that"? the woman asked.

"You have learned that you will never learn everything there is to know," he replied. "And you have learned how to stop the pain.”

– As told by Melody Beattie in Codependent No More

~ ~ ~

Of course, no one here would condone or affirm such harsh “therapy” in reality (nor would Beattie). But, recognizing it as a fable, one might see where circumstances (and people) in one’s life have been that harsh: demanding what you could not deliver – and punishing you for your failures to measure up, or fit into the “proper” box. (And perhaps, sometimes we ourselves collaborated in that, because of what we were taught and didn’t know better.)

Till you see through the games, and learn how to stop the pain.

Seems to me that is what, at bottom, Epicurus was trying – with his gentler therapy – to impart. Then we can begin to live a simpler eudaimonic life in serenity and pleasure.