Posts by Pacatus

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.]

Welcome, Julia!

By Zeus, Don , what an impressive, well-written work of scholarship!

I was particularly caught by this: “ … large enough to attract the attention of Memmius, a well-to-do Roman citizen, who wanted to raze the property and construct his own villa on the site.” Now, Epicurus’ abode may not have been as extensive as a villa, but this would indicate that either (1) a significant portion of the plot on which his house existed was the grounds (cultivated? how?) , and/or (2) Epicurus’ house may have been a bit more than a humble cottage.

After Khayyam

“And, as the Cock crew, those who stood before
The Tavern shouted—'Open then the Door.
You know how little while we have to stay,
And, once departed, may return no more.’"

– Omar Khayyam, Rubaiyat III, translated by Edward Fitzgerald (from his First Edition)

~ ~ ~

And so, to the tavern at dawn make haste,
that lively vintage tapped this morn to taste –
for yesterday’s run dry, tomorrow’s fruit
unpres't – and deign not this hour sour to waste

whilst wishing what mayest thou savor when
fortune’s flavors favor your taste buds’ ken,
from imagining and memory bruit:
fancies and dreams – once dreamt, must drowse again.

The past draught, once drunk, shall be drawn no more;
and next year’s sherry – yet to bloom with flor,
in oaken casks to ferment – still, doth wait.
This day’s quick wine thus quaff, while it may pour –

and lose not thyself in portentous lore;
nor scorn merry mirth, vain creeds to adore.

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

“flor” – a yeast that is used in the production of sherry (from Spanish for flower).

Written in the form of Edward Fitzgerald’s quatrains (except for the closing couplet).

Image from an illustration by Edmund Dulac from the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, 1909

Quote from Don

I have to ask here, too: What does it mean "to be an Epicurean"? Do you have to "proclaim your faith" so to speak... or can the conduct of one's life and approach to living be "Epicurean" without "being an Epicurean"?

Or who gets to declare if the proper and necessary criteria are met to be an Epicurean – and what those criteria are for anyone/everyone? It’s for questions like these that I am loath to call myself an Epicurean (or a/an anything along those lines). I prefer just “Epicurean” – as an adjective, and even that with some reservation.

In the end, I try to fit the philosophy to my life, so far as it seems reasonable, true and helpful (Epicurean philosophy just seems to provide that, generally, better than others). I do not try to bind my life (thoughts and behavior) to the demands or protocols of a philosophy in order to call myself a [ … ]. {Procrustes’ bed comes to mind. }

In the end, I may not be an Epicurean – let alone a “good Epicurean”. And that’s okay.

Quote from Joshua

The meaning of this 'meaning of life' is as elusive as the claims of the snake-oil salesman, because that's exactly what it is; an imaginary cure to what is not, in fact, a disease. The 'disease' is explicitly atheism and hedonism, and to sell the cure one must first sell the idea that the disease is real and shameful. When they tell you that your life without gods is without meaning, they are you telling you to feel ashamed.

Don't.

Boom!

Quote from Cassius

What if your life isn't "together" and you don't have time to read philosophy? Why would someone like that spending any time discussing Epicurus?

Even a simple, bite-by-bite imbibing of Epicurean principles can (in my opinion) be helpful in getting one’s life together (just as in many therapies). A deep, time-consuming dive into scholarship or even popular sources (such as Emily Austin) is not necessary – and for many people may not be possible. This site is a very good resource for those people, who can tap in as they need and wish. It has been for me.

[This question could merit a whole thread of its own – as could some of the others no doubt.]

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

VS 27 (Bailey version): "In all other occupations the fruit comes painfully after completion, but, in philosophy, pleasure goes hand in hand with knowledge; for enjoyment does not follow comprehension, but comprehension and enjoyment are simultaneous." Effective therapy (in my experience) does the same: once, when I was going through a really rough time, I went into my first meeting with a therapist (who later became a friend) scared, anxious and depressed – I left laughing. Was that the end of it? No. But that was the process that kept me coming back for some time.

Same for here.

Quote from kochiekoch

The science shows everyone IS a psychological hedonist , and the science is what is empirically known. He or she may deny the science, like a creationist denying evolution, but that's what's actually true.

Or the Stoic denying that feeling pleasure at her accomplishments (a good self-pat on the back?) guides her pursuit of virtue?

“I lay open the mysteries of science; I expose the beauties of art; I call the graces and the muses to my aid; the song, the lyre, and the dance. … I grant that I do not look to make men great, but to make men happy.”

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

The welcoming, freeing and encouraging therapy of the Garden, wherein perfect adherence to some set of self-binding rules is not requisite – versus the duty- and rule-binding severity of the Stoa, wherein even taking pleasure in one’s accomplished virtue is suspect. (And its heir, the duty-based Kantian morality I I so deeply imbibed.)

The Stoa: “First be ‘good’.”

The Garden: “First be well.”

I’ve been thinking lately about the sequential nature of this: What if I indulge in a pleasure now that may result in some pain after – but calculate that the resulting pain (say, feeling over-full after a delicious meal) will be less than the pleasure indulged (say, the taste-pleasure of the meal – one more bite of delicious fare)? Does the pleasure/pain calculus only run one way sequentially?

Welcome.

Quote from Cassius

So somehow we have to set some terms on what is meant at a basic level. Are we talking something short term or much longer?

Both. Behind my bad joke is the point that there are different shades of happiness: like pleasure/pleasantness (on which I think happiness is based – my Epicurean view), it can be both “kinetic” and “katastematic.” And I think we can identify those for ourselves experientially pretty readily, and I associate them with well-being as opposed to ill-being (though we can find happiness in mental pleasure/well-being, even with bodily ill-being – as Epicurus was able to do on his death bed).

For me, then, the problem is one of philosophical parsing (in order to communicate philosophically – not to imply that is a small matter) of something that does not seem problematic at all (to me) experientially. And that is where I think folks like Cicero get lost: they elevate (their) philosophical apparatus over plain experience, and then struggle to fit plain experience into that philosophical apparatus. Epicurus, it seems to me, takes the exact opposite (and natural, reality-based) tack. And that Epicurean tack seems far more relatable to everyday living – and finding eudaimonia therein.

Are we to “Fifty Shades of Eudaimonia” yet?    

Don

To be unhelpfully repetitive, I translate as "happy well-being" -- if I translate at all.

"We must try to make the end of the journey better than the beginning, as long as we are journeying; but when we come to the end, we must be happy and content." (Vatican Saying 48)

Of course, that one I'd hit on right away! (Though, in deference to Don, I might change "happy" to "cheerful".)

ADDENDUM to previous posts: Maybe my thin thread of Jewish heritage (not enough to be a “halachic” – Torah approved – Jew, but enough that could well have sent me to Dachau*) explains my tendency to want to argue multiple possible alternative points to any side. But I think that Epicurus’ insistence on multiple possible causes for any effect ( with the possibility of “over-determination”) goes a long way to cover that …

[* My great grandfather on my paternal side married a Catholic woman: and so all their offspring became de facto Catholic. Not me, though ...]

Rabbinical Judaism is almost radically dialogic. When I was participating in the weekly Talmud study, I early on (because I can’t quite bite my tongue) said about some passage that I disagreed with what someone else in the class had said. I blushed, and apologized – saying something like, “Sorry: I’m a guest here.” To which one of the other students, wagging a finger at me, said: “No, no, no! That’s what you’re supposed to do: argue!”

There is a scene from the film “Yentl”, in which Yentl (in her disguise as a male in order to study Talmud) and her study partner are speaking sotto voce, when the rabbi comes around and asks: “Are you agreeing or disagreeing?” Response: “Oh, we’re disagreeing, Rabbi. We’re disagreeing!” Several Jewish commentators I once read said that whole scene was an accurate reflection of Torah study.

Some of this is based on the highly polysemous nature of classical (Torah) Hebrew. The Talmuds (there are two: the Bavli – Babylonian Talmud – and the lesser Yerushalmi – Jerusalem Talmud) are essentially a history (up to a point) of Rabbinical argument, and commentaries on the original arguments (the Mishnah). Sometimes the arguments appear to be resolved; sometimes not – and sometimes might give the appearance of resolution by truncation. But the Rabbis continue the process …

There is a saying in the Talmud (going from memory): “The real Torah is not complete until you have added your [personal] torah to the Torah.” Thus, there is a dynamic open-endedness that derives from a certain hermeneutical freedom. But there is always argument – and you’re expected to make yours. (“Torah,” here, could almost be translated as “Tao” – as I understand the Greek Logos is rendered in Chinese Bibles. There is the received written Torah – the biblical texts; the expanded interpretive Torah – the Talmuds and Midrash; and the ongoing Torah.)

[Note: I doubt that I would have been welcome in a strict Orthodox congregation. My background, experience – and interpretations – are personal. I spent some years, on my own, delving into various aspects – and Hebrew (though mostly how that language works: never proficient, though I could recognize a few words if I was reading “pointed” text). It was a great pleasure. But I couldn’t find a home there.]

Quote from Don

That almost sounds Epicurean in that they take part in the rituals of the community but don't ascribe to the supernatural elements.

Apikorsim. Although Judaism, historically and broadly, is generally more orthopraxic than orthodoxic.

I had an acquaintance who was a Humanistic Jew. I made the slip-of-tongue (quite innocently) of Saying "atheistic Judaism" -- he just laughed and said, "Yeah, pretty much."