Posts by Pacatus

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

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.

Quote from Patrikios

The writing is: “Epicurean Stability (eustatheia): A Philosophical Approach of Stress Management”, by Christos Yapijakis and George P. Chrousos, medical professionals teaching at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece.

Thank you, Patrikios . I found a PDF version of that essay here: https://societyofepicurus.com/wp-content/upl…-Eustatheia.pdf

“As a practical matter it seems to me that Epicurus was right that it would be impossible for us to live happily if we did not organize our lives as if we are confident that we have some amount of free agency. … That has to be good enough and I judge it to be good enough - at least for me.”

– Cassius post #4 above.

Yes. And the fact that our agency / ability to choose may be constrained by circumstances or our own abilities at any given moment is no refutation.

Even under a regime of strict determination, that very regime, it seems to me, includes for us the near-universal perception that we have such agency – and the practical necessity that we behave accordingly in order to live happily.

I have always had the most difficulty with that final line of the tetrapharmakos. Not all pain is “easy” to bear – not for me, or likely anyone. The comments about context are, I think, on the mark. And the context, for me, is Epicurean practices (therapies) to alleviate that pain as much as possible – to make it bearable. Epicurus on his death bed provides an example. And that, I think, is the superiority of Epicurean philosophy (therapy) over the Cyrenaics: recognition that mental pleasures (e.g., focus on memories) can be called upon to alleviate physical pain. And that is something that I have been able to do.

“Hedonophobia is an excessive fear or aversion to obtaining pleasure. … Hedonophobics have a type of guilt about feeling pleasure or experiencing pleasurable sensations, due to a cultural background or training (either religious or cultural) that eschews pleasurable pursuits as frivolous or inappropriate. Oftentimes, social guilt is connected to having fun while others are suffering, and is common for those who feel undeserving or have self-worth issues to work through. Also, there is a sense that they should not be given pleasures due to their lack of performance in life, and because they have done things that are deemed ‘wrong’ or ‘undeserving.’"

://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonophobia#:~:text=Hedonophobia%20is%20formally%20defined%20as,is%20often%20a%20persistent%20malady.

Today is the first that I heard of such a thing (in some random reading).

But I have known at least one person (who came immediately to mind) who had a fairly strong and insistent version of this. She was a social activist (whom I knew from my own, lesser, participation in some of the same issues), who is a lay-member of a Roman Catholic Benedictine group.

Anyone else have any experience with this?

I’ve been muddling over this thought experiment since Kalosyni presented it. I think that the way it is presented – particularly the liberating vacation metaphor – cuts right to the bone in terms of how we make decisions today in the face of our impending (no matter our age or what we might expect) death and dissolution (including our memories). Maybe my age resonates with how I think about it.

Don ‘s dementia take is not so far off the mark I think, but I look at it the other way round from what I understood his perspective to be: suppose I were diagnosed with an early-stage but progressive dementia which is likely to be total at the end of a year (and I might not even recognize those friends, or what they are talking about).

I’m still “muddling” – especially since Kalosyni’s experiment is cast in Epicurean terms, rather than some radically presentist Cyrenaic frame. Let’s just say that, for me, it is seriously thought-provoking.

~ ~ ~

And it reminds me of an old (1965 - 1968, when I was in high school ) TV series called "Run for Your Life," starring Ben Gazzara. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Run_for_Your_Life_(TV_series).

Quote from Cassius

I would expect any of our readers in GA or NC or DC or the Florida panhandle might be without power - at least that's our situation!

Here's hoping all remain well.

Don

If it were not for librarians – and other free researchers – such as yourself, I long ago would have been lost in the closely closeted (or corested?) strictures of those professors, philosophers and priests who permitted no thinking outside their – corsets. (“Why are you reading that?!”)

From my academic student days till now. Thank you.

Quote from Cassius

He was setting the playing field so we can *begin* the analysis of how we spend our time,

That just struck me. "Setting the playing field!" Yes!

We still have to play. Nothing in this life around that.

Julia,

I relate to your question. Even in my elder years, I seem to spend too much time in the lower region of your diagram. I have learned (a lot of it on here! but elsewhere as well) perspectives for dealing with that. But, as Ram Das once quipped: “The most difficult thing is to remember – to remember!”

So – eventually (in my ADH[D] labyrinth*) I remember to come back. And sometimes I do find myself in the upper region of your diagram.

A sports analogy: Athletes want to get into “the zone” – where all they do seems easy, even effortless. But that “zone” does not always seem accessible, let alone permanent – then the athlete deals as best they can.

So: I’ve had those moments. I expect to have them again. But, till then, I’ll deal with the “Epicurean calculus” as best I can – and move on.

I doubt any of that is helpful. So I’ll just wish you well and all wellness, for what that might be worth.

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

* As I have noted before, I reject that final “D” – it’s not a disability, just the way my hypertexting brain works. Sometimes for the better …

Quote from Cassius

When I am in those moods, the thing that works best for me is to do something to remember that the clock is ticking (even something like looking at a clock!), that I will never get lost time back, that I have a very limited time to do what I want to do before I die.

I wear a bracelet inscribed with "memento mori." It was Don who pointed out to me that this could be taken as much (maybe moreso) in an Epicurean vein as a Stoic one (where it seems to usually show up).

Also PD 16 (unless I missed it):

PD16. In but few things chance hinders a wise man, but the greatest and most important matters, reason has ordained, and throughout the whole period of life does and will ordain.

βραχέα σοφῷ τύχη παρεμπίπτει, τὰ δὲ μέγιστα καὶ κυριώτατα ὁ λογισμὸς διῴκηκε καὶ κατὰ τὸν συνεχῆ χρόνον τοῦ βίου διοικεῖ καὶ διοικήσει.

Cicero obfuscating and arguing out of both sides of his mouth?! Say it ain’t so!

__________

Although the main matter here may have to do with mortality, the following struck me:

“‘Cicero’ conflates both argumentative strategies. On the one hand, he shows (i) that also according to non-virtue single-good schools, the goods required for happiness are available even under adverse circumstances, while conditions regarded as bad are no bads or at least not so bad that it would be impossible to obtain the goods constitutive of happiness. On the other hand, (ii) he attributes to virtue an instrumental function for guaranteeing happiness.

…

“All types of real non-virtue goods are sufficiently available for a person to be happy, and there is no reason to suffer from apparent bads that one can despise and disregard (strategy i). However, a person also needs the ability to assess goods and bads correctly, must assume the right attitude toward them and make the right choices. This ability is virtue, understood here as a mind educated to assess correctly what is good or bad so that it does not value what is worthless or fear what is harmless (strategy ii).”

As I recall, the primary practical (instrumental) virtue for the Stoic Epictetus was what we today would call agency: exercising our ability to choose among options.

It seems to me that this virtue is precisely what Epicurus emphasizes in our practical ability to choose among (1) the three categories of desires, and (2) pleasures that may lead to pain and pains that, if endured, lead to greater pleasure.

Possession of this virtue itself does not guarantee happiness (eudaimonia – with due recognition of problematic translation), but only its astute application. Virtue cannot be the only thing necessary for happiness (let alone, as the author mentions earlier, being happiness!) – but rather its instrumental application toward what is happiness: pleasure.

_______________________

There, at bottom, seems to be a kind of vicious circularity in the Stoic notion of virtue being the sole necessary and sufficient “good” for eudaimonia – let alone constituting eudaimonia. Virtue is either instrumental or not. Cicero seems to want it both ways.

Welcome MaiTaiNye.