Posts by Pacatus

Quote from Little Rocker

I admit that I feel like I've reached a point where every time I hear a passionate argument about altruism I cry a little on the inside, even though I recognize that the possibility of altruism really matters to a lot of people. I think I've just lost sight of why it does.

Just some off-the-cuff thoughts:

For me, altruistic acts – from an Epicurean view – can be important from two different points of view: (1) they give me pleasure (the Stoics might deny that as a criteria, but I think they tend to delude themselves with regard to their own pleasure/satisfaction on this score – as Don said); and (2) both in terms of local community and friendship, and in terms of a more extended social fabric – based on a social contract to prevent harm by means of preserving an amenable social context in which we perforce live – as instrumentally choiceworthy, even if any reciprocity is not immediately expected. In today’s world, that social fabric likely includes at least some global considerations.

And perhaps pleasureable feelings of empathy are evolutionarily derived, supporting humans ability to live in any sense of community – and are still valid pathé today in that sense.

None of that relies on some abstract ideal of virtue or “command-morality” (as in the Stoics and Kant, say), which I heartily reject. And, it seems to me, it is the practical instrumentality that those idealists find objectionable.

It does, of course, depend on how narrowly or broadly one thinks of that term “altruism.” But Epicurus did say that one might reasonably die for one’s friends.

At least that’s my personal reflection …

I have just finished Wilson’s Epicureanism: A Very Brief Introduction. It is, indeed, very brief: the text being 120 pages.

As I read, I realized that the books we talk about here fall generally into two categories (though one might often “bleed” into the other): (1) the pragmatic – in terms of how one might live as an Epicurean in our modern times (and why that is worthy of consideration); and (2) the more straightforwardly “philosophical” – in the contemporary sense of that term. In the first category are such as Emily Austin, Hiram Crespo, Haris Dimitriadis and Wilson’s How to Live as an Epicurean (which I need to revisit). In the second category are DeWitt’s Epicurus and His Philosophy, Epicurean Philosophy: An introduction from the “Garden of Athens” (Christos Yapijakis Editor) – and Wilson’s Very Brief Introduction.

What one might recommend as an introduction thus ought to consider where a given person’s interest and prior exposure might be. (I tend to return more to those in the first category.) With that said, Wilson’s Very Brief Introduction might be considered as a sort of “outline primer” to, say, DeWitt.

Her treatment of Epicureanism is what I might call “critically fair” (fair as in evenhanded). She often skillfully sets up the arguments of Epicurus' critics (such as the Stoics and – especially -- the Christians and Kant), only to effectively dismantle (or at least diminish) them. Where she herself offers criticism (or affirms those of others), it was generally in the manner of “it seems” – to her, or to majority contemporary thought. In other words, she seems to leave room (at least implicitly) for cogent criticism of her criticism. [And that has been accomplished, without direct reference to Wilson, on here many times.]

In sum – and, as I said, contingent on my revisiting of her How to Live as an Epicurean – I am revising my opinions recorded above in this thread to a more affirmative view.

~ ~ ~

On reflection of my thoughts in the 2^nd paragraph above, I searched my (much diminished) philosophy shelf, and found a book I had forgotten: Atoms, Pleasure, Virtue: The Philosophy of Epicurus by Avraam Koen (1995). Has anyone else read it? The book was drawn from his PhD dissertation. It seems to be out of print but available: the Amazon price for the paperback is a hefty $61.75.

My copy is riddled with highlights, underlines and marginal notes – some of which I started to skim. If I find anything I think worth discussing here, I’ll post it.

An article on recent research into the importance of friendship. (I’m an introvert, but I’m fortunate to live with my best friend.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/2024/05/28/in-person-friendships-health-benefits/

Quote from Julia

(At times like this, it still feels wild how I myself have been blind to this simple truth for so long; how that was even possible despite all the reading and reflection, despite knowing in my gut that “something isn't right”; how completely I was entrenched in what is wrong so obviously.)

I’m 73 years old, and I still struggle with some of that old stuff (though so much I have let go), and I still have questions. I just keep coming back here.

Quote from Don

I need to read Wilson's Epicureanism: A Very Short Introduction separate from her How to be an Epicurean.

I've just started it. I've always liked that Oxford University Press series.

Quote from Julia

(The Cynic answer: “I just shat on the floor.”)

Quote from Julia

The Epicurean answer: “Myself!”

In the context of the video, absolutely. But I'd extend the Epicurean answer to: Myself – and if can we can be friends, then you too, à la the so-called “Gestalt Prayer”:

I do my thing and you do your thing.
I am not in this world to live up to your expectations,
And you are not in this world to live up to mine.
You are you, and I am I,
and if by chance we find each other, it's beautiful.
If not, it can't be helped.

— Fritz Perls, Gestalt Therapy Verbatim, 1969

Quote from Don

I need to read Wilson's Epicureanism: A Very Short Introduction separate from her How to be an Epicurean.

Good catch! I was really thinking of her How to be an Epicurean.

Quote from Cassius

How would you compare it to the Catherine Wilson books?

Although I enjoy and appreciate Wilson, I would likely not include her in the top half-dozen. For example, I would put Crespo ahead of her, and Frances Wright’s fictionalization, A Few Days in Athens. And also Epicurean Philosophy An introduction from the “Garden of Athens”, Christos Yapijakis Editor (maybe ahead of Crespo).

Is there some reason why Haris Dimitriadis’ book generally seems to get left out of these discussions? I really like it, and would surely recommend it, at least after (1) Austin and (2) DeWitt as a next-step presentation for modern readers. But maybe I’m missing something …

I agree with Don on the thumbs up for "Eye of the Tiger." But I am also partial to "Let It Go" from the film Frozen.

Quote from Don

I don't think we can be aware of ourselves without something external to us

Further, we have no non-relative "view from nowhere" (a so-called "god's eye view" ) from which to be aware of anything. This is ultimately what is behind the existentialist dictum "existence precedes essence" -- i.e., we can not even consider how things "really (essentially) are" except from some relative perspective(s). I am thinking here of the existentialist perspectivism of Spanish philosopher Jose Ortega y Gassett (but Nietzsche was also on to it).

Quote from Cassius

An existence possessing such a power I have never seen; and though this says nothing against the possibility of such an existence, it says every thing against my belief in it. And farther, the power which you attribute to this existence — that of willing every thing out of nothing, — being, not only what I have never seen, but that of which I cannot with any distinctness conceive — it must appear to me the greatest of all improbabilities.

This reminds me of how I think Pyrrhonists and Epicureans (both ancient and modern) seem to often talk past one another (not to say there aren’t significant differences: they seem to have different understandings of “dogma” – and perhaps of “truth,” with the Pyrrhonists perhaps holding to what would now be called an “infallibist” version: that is, to claim to know truth about how the reality “really is,” one is claiming objective certainty – which a Pyrrhonist would say one cannot have about “non-evident” matters, even as one accepts inductive inference as the best guide we may have for agency – including further investigation). Epicurus’ position in the quote would I think be perfectly acceptable to a modern Pyrrhonist like Adrian Kuzminski (Pyrrhonism: How the Ancient Greeks Reinvented Buddhism). Here is a debate between two modern advocates of each camp:

Epicureanism Versus Pyrrhonism

Comparisons between any two philosophies typically focus on their differences. This article will instead focus on similarities. In…

pyrrhonism.medium.com

+++++++++++++

Note: It also reminds me of Hume’s skepticism about causality (perceived correlation versus actual cause) – but I think he might have done well to draw on Epicurus’ early (original?) views on the possibility of any effect having multiple causes (causal over-determination), e.g. in the Letter to Phytocles.

http://www.academyofathens.gr/static/philosophy/Abstract-Handout_Tsouna_010421.pdf

Quote from Godfrey

There's an interesting paper "The Polytheism of the Epicureans" by Paul Terrence Matthias Jackson which may also be relevant here.

The Polytheism of the Epicureans

Epicureans have been branded atheists since antiquity, but although they might have held unorthodox beliefs about divinity, they did nevertheless believe in…

www.academia.edu

Quote from Bryan

Additionally, if an idea synthesized in our mind does not accurately correspond to an external object, then it is an empty opinion.

And yet, our ability to imagine often leads to discoveries about the external, sensual world that may not have come about otherwise: theoretical science often becomes physical science.

There is also the aesthetic element: Mozart imagined (“heard"/synthesized in his mind) combinations of musical notes that became a score – and hence a symphony that can be played and enjoyed.

And the very ways in which we represent the sensual world to ourselves, and think about it, may invariably involve some imaginative activity (at least I don’t think that can be discounted; and I think there is some empirical evidence for it). For example, “Even when you use your imagination to remember something that actually happened to you, you’re creating a simulation of a time and place that no longer exists.” (Jim Davies. Imagination: The Science of Your Mind's Greatest Power. 2019. Pegasus Books.) Also, imagination can be employed therapeutically to discover and address things about ourselves we might otherwise have not uncovered.

Self-sufficiency seems to be relative to a host of circumstances.

When we lived in the country (our 15 years of pleasurable – even festive – life simplification), a month without the grid was thinkable and doable without tremendous effort. In a sense, our lifestyle kept us naturally prepared. Water that could be rendered potable was plentiful, as was our storage space, and the ability to cook outside with fire (we always had several cords of spit hardwood for winter, and there was always enough left to cook with in the other seasons).

Now we live in a small apartment in a small-city urban environment. That choice makes us more grid-dependent, and sets certain limits on how prepared we can be, relative to our former life. Also, now in our mid-70s with medical issues, camping out with backpacks and maps is a non-starter. Water might be the main issue. We can store canned goods and dried goods that do not require water for preparing. A month may be a bit much to hope for, but a couple weeks seems doable for sure. We keep a good supply of batteries for lanterns and electric candles. Any kind of fire (e.g. a charcoal grill) is forbidden under the terms of our lease – but a small gas grill would undoubtedly be overlooked in the kind of situation we’re talking about.

None of this detracts from Julia ‘s points at all; on the contrary, they are appreciated.

Julia How much water do you estimate you need to stock for a month per person?

Quote from Don

One can enjoy every other pleasure more if one's mind isn't troubled and one's body is in (reasonably) good working order.

Yes, that seems to be the author's general point. And I found it to be an enlightening one (probably means I haven't been paying close enough attention to you! ).

Not on point to the questions asked, but a plea for a revitalized Epicureanism for the modern day:

“’The wasteland grows,’ wrote Nietzsche over a century ago. 'Woe to him who hides wastelands within.' Since then, the wastelands have grown ever more indiscriminately, both within and without. Our social and spiritual lives wither on our cell phone screens. Our cities, habitats, and public arenas suffer from a blight whose causes remain obscure while the effects are all-too-evident. The “little garden” of the human spirit falls into disrepair.

“The term ‘little garden’ alludes to Ho Kepos, or the small privately owned garden where in 306 BC Epicurus started one of the most influential and long-lived schools of antiquity. He lived in darkening times similar to ours, when the public and political spheres of Athenian democracy had fallen into decay and degradation. Greek philosophers before him—starting with Aristotle—believed that human happiness was possible only within the polis and the activities of citizenship. Epicurus instead believed that happiness had to be sought far from the folly and factionalism of the public realm. That is one reason he founded his school just outside the walls of Athens.

“Our age is badly in need of a strong dose of creative, revitalized Epicureanism, for Epicurus offers us a philosophy of how people can, on their own initiative, create little wellsprings of happiness in the midst of the wasteland.”

Robert Pogue Harrison, https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/epicurus-for-our-time/

In my random surfing, I found the essay cited below, from which I include the following quotations:

“Our body enjoys doing what is healthy. And this may be a key to Epicurus’ view. What Epicurus terms katastematic pleasure is much like Aristotle's unimpeded activity of a natural state; it is the natural pleasure experienced when the organism is functioning smoothly. It is the pleasure of being alive; living and functioning in a healthy way feels good because it is good.”

“Lack of disturbance does not mean lack of sensory perceptions, and lack of pain does not imply lack of feeling or pleasure. Since we are hylomorphic beings––beings of animate and sensate flesh––pleasure requires involvement of the body and senses. To enjoy sensory pleasure we need to have a healthy constitution; therefore, we can most enjoy sensory pleasures when we enjoy them in moderation.”

“To summarize, it is clear that Epicurus believed that the highest pleasure is the stable pleasure of complete calmness of soul and lack of pain. Human beings in that state can enjoy the kinetic pleasures that sweeten the senses: music, art, nature, sensory delights. Pleasure comes from sufficiency, not lack. … However, Epicurean wisdom teaches that in fact we do not need much to live a rich and fulfilling life. When we experience a state in which we are satisfied and complete, we can enjoy all the variations that life brings.”

https://cup.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Philosophies-of-Happiness-Appendix-6.pdf

++++++++++++++

The author seems to commit the same “higher pleasure” error mentioned by Cassius above – but does seem to succeed in arguing against the notion that a state of katastematic pleasure somehow obviates the natural, healthy desire for varying kinetic pleasures – on the contrary. And pleasure is pleasure.

Late Note: I found the author of the above -- Diana Lobel, associate professor of religion at Boston University. The above comes from her book Philosophies of Happiness.

++++++++++++++

As a personal aside, re the italicized sentence above – A therapist friend once asked why I continued my particular indulgences in tobacco. I said: “Because I enjoy it.” His response: “Your body doesn’t.”

Quote from Cassius

But Epicurean philosophy not only does not teach that there is no need to wish for "more" life, it teaches that life is desirable, because life is absolutely necessary for the experience of pleasure. Life is so desirable, and so important, that every aspect of life which is not specifically painful is worthy to be considered pleasurable.

And the natural fact that pleasure is linked to well-being (physical and mental), while pain is linked to ill-being (with the occasional exceptions where a temporary pain must be endured – e.g., a trip to the dentist – to ensure continued pleasurable well-being). And well-being is conducive of a longer, healthier, happier (more pleasurable) life; ill-being, the opposite. Of course, there are nuances in the real complexities of living and choosing – but I remain amazed at how these simple, clear concepts have gotten so corrupted.

[I hasten to admit that I am not particularly disciplined re the so-called “hedonic calculus” on a day-by-day basis – but that is my responsibility, and I will not hide it “under the bushel” of some obfuscatory philosophy.]