Posts by reneliza

Quote from Godfrey

Quote from Don

I don't think there is a neutral state although I'm going to have to go back to Barrett and Lembke to think about this in light of their research. (Sent thoughts, Godfrey ?)

Practically speaking I don't think there's a neutral state.

Neurologically speaking I'm not qualified to answer that. But of course I'm happy to toss out an opinion. The affective circumplex and the teeter totter are both conceptual models or analogies and therefore it could be assumed that they don't fully represent the biological processes at work. They seem to imply a neutral state at 0,0 or at perfectly level, respectively. But it could be that these implied states are a failure of the analogies, or that they are so infinitesimal as to be meaningless.

This paper is generally...not great (especially with chestnuts like this, implying that the ideal state of a hedonist would be maximum, activated bliss all the time - wearing me out literally just reading the sentence..."For instance, going from a painful experience to a neutral one probably feels like an improvement, whereas going from a joyous state to a neutral one might be experienced as a decline." emphasis mine)

But it does offer a nice overview and lots of links to other sources. The one thing I do agree with the author on, is that the "neutral" affect, if it exists at all, need not be experienced neutrally. My thoughts are that "neutral" states are valenced by our perspective (not necessarily only fleeting momentary moods), which is why an Epicurean can experience hedonic pleasure from them, while a Cyrenaic may try to avoid them altogether, and many other people may seek or avoid depending on their moods, or the amount of "virtue" they place in not feeling much of anything.

Quote from Cassius

I don't think that a person looking at the chart without explanation would conclude that "except for the first one, all are at the limit of pinkness." Without "explanation" (which comes through philosophy) I think most people would say that the top right circle is the "most pink" because they would be automatically be looking at the darkness (intensity) and fullness (purity) of the color in the circle as making it "most pink."

However, with the explanation, which I agree makes sense by explaining that "pink" includes all shades of pink, the chart conveys exactly the point which is intended: that the "limit of pleasure" does not mean "the most intense pleasure possible" but in fact means a state in which pleasure cannot be increased BY DEFINITION.

I originally drew this out with whatever markers I had on my desk and picked pink at first just because I like it, but then the more I thought it through, pink is the perfect color for this, because it is defined by being some mix of red and white. If you take it all the way to either extreme, it's literally not pink anymore. This isn't to say anything about "higher" or "lower" pleasures, but rather that although the instinct is probably to say that darker pink=more pink, that can be debunked easily by pointing out that red is not "more pink" than pink.

Quote from Cassius

PD18. The pleasure in the flesh is not increased when once the pain due to want is removed, but is only varied: and the limit as regards pleasure in the mind is begotten by the reasoned understanding of these very pleasures, and of the emotions akin to them, which used to cause the greatest fear to the mind.

PD18 was definitely my main point of understanding, although I still have a ways to go in wrapping my mind around the latter part about pleasure in the mind...

Quote from Kalosyni

Quote from Don

Let's say my life is stable, comfortable, overall pleasurable with episodes now and again of pain.
Something happens and I have to defend my home and family from hostile forces... I'm now in a war.
My life is now unstable, dangerous, with an overall abundance of pain with small episodes of pleasure.
I am fighting a war to return peace and stability to my life so I can again have a life that is stable, comfortable, and has more pleasure than pain. I did not choose to fight this war, but I now have no choice but to engage in war.
My side wins the war. I can piece my life back together hopefully and find more pleasure than pain in my existence.

In my mind survival does not equal pleasure. Survival does not guarantee pleasure. Don's quote is applicable even in other situations -- For example, someone getting into a career requiring long stressful hours of work, and then transitioning into a different line of work which is less stressful.

The drive for survival is not the same as the pursuit of enjoyment in life. In survival we want to eliminate pain, in enjoyment we are adding in pleasure.

These are all nuances, and interesting to talk about.

If Pleasure and Pain are mutually exhaustive (ie all experiences are pleasure or pain) then the elimination of pain must be a pleasure.

I'm not sure if there's anything in the text that spells this out explicitly, but this is how I understand the "limit" conversation. Once you eliminate all pain, that's the limit of pleasure because everything left over IS pleasure (if it's not pain it is by definition pleasure)

I drew out a sketch to try to further understand this myself - similar to the concept of the vessel. If we think of life as pleasure, pain, and neutral, then just removing pain doesn't reach the limit of pleasure. But if you realize that there is pleasure in anything that is not pain (yes, even organizing a sock drawer), then there is no neutral, so what is left over when pain is removed is all pleasure

In the picture, the bright pink represents more intense or active pleasures and the pale pink represents passive pleasures, with white representing "neutral." Which circle is the most pink? Except for the first one, they are all at the limit of pinkness. Darker pink is not more or less pink than lighter pink. They're both pleasure, the difference is just the shade.

Quote from Don

Quote from reneliza

You don’t have to tell your body “move this foot, then move that foot” - you just tell it “start walking” and after a step or two it’s going on autopilot.

Which is one reason why we trip maybe. Our brains are like "Woah! That hole wasn't in the walking plan! Oops!"

I think this is right on point with this discussion. And it doesn't negate Epicurus's basic premise that we have to rely on our senses. We have no other direct connection with the physical world than our senses and pleasure/pain. Our minds will "play tricks on us" but the "input" is coming from real, physical, material phenomena.

Yes exactly! Both on tripping, and on reliance on the senses. The data that reaches our conscious mind isn't perfect, but it's all we've got

So this is definitely not the same thing, but when I was still working I was studying central pattern generators which are parts of the nervous system that allow us to carry out repetitive motions without thinking about it. Breathing is an obvious example, but it even applies to things that we think of as purely voluntary movements like walking. You don’t have to tell your body “move this foot, then move that foot” - you just tell it “start walking” and after a step or two it’s going on autopilot.

The comparison here is just the huge amount of assorted automatic stuff that our brains are doing in the background on both the INPUT and OUTPUT side of things. And how much of our experience on both ends is just based on what we expect.

“but we only really perceive what our brains (in many ways) *expect* us to perceive”

I’ve been thinking so much about this lately.

Thanks for sharing!

wait so…. I should send a pamphlet back to the JW who cold mailed me a pamphlet on the true route to happinesss?

Quote from Don

Just a thought: With all the new meetings, I'd suggest trying to make the 20th "special" and not just *another* online meeting. That date is literally the connection to the Ancient Epicurean community. I don't have any ideas currently on making it special, just raising the point for discussion.

I agree and was thinking the same last night

I hope to make it depending on how early the kids go to bed!

Quote from Godfrey

are you trying to paper over misery with a coating of pleasure?

Just out of curiosity - is this what Epicurus was doing in his final days when he was (apparently) cheerful and in high spirits even though he was in tremendous pain? Where is the line drawn for when it's ideal to find pleasure in less than ideal circumstances and when that's a delusion being used to mask the pain?

Quote from Cassius

Quote from reneliza

I’ve realized through this discussion that between Epicureanism and neuroscience there’s a whole lot of interesting questions about the function of the senses.

And there's this constant crossover between the observation of "how they function" as opposed to drawing conclusions from those observations.

That's of course a deep philosophical discussion in itself, but I think it's worth noting that no matter how much progress we make in unwinding the "how" in terms of the biological or electrical or whatever processes we dig into, there's always another level of "how" that goes deeper than our current understanding.

I say that to emphasize that a lot of people seem to think that just by peeling back another layer of the "how" we'll be making a lot of progress when we observe a deeper level (there is some really good material in Frances Wright on this issue). And in a sense new observation does generally help us, but no matter how far we dig into the "how" we're always going to have to make some higher-level conclusions about our "world-view" with less information than we would like to have. We would "live" to be omniscient and know everything about everything, but we never will.

Oh I completely agree - I don’t mean the simple electrochemical and mechanical function, but more how that impacts our understanding of what is sensation and where the line is drawn between sensation and cognition (with regard to the understanding that the senses are truly reported but may be misinterpreted) and how they both interact to bring pleasure or pain.

I mean there's the obvious clichés like the experience box but I think there are a lot of deeper questions to ask given that we don't observe the world /directly/ (tbh I can't even conceive of what that would mean) but through the filter of our senses (in the sense that there are frequencies we can't hear or see and individual variation in sensitivity, but also that the horse we see is "reported" to our brain as a stream of neurochemicals meant to represent the shapes and colors that make up a horse)

None of this to imply that we SHOULDN'T trust our senses, because we obviously should. Without that we have absolutely no basis in how to choose our actions. I think there are answers to these questions that relate directly not only to what we know and what is real, but also to how to accomplish the goal of reducing pain and enhancing pleasure.

Further on the topic of uncertainties: I always said that the reason I chose to major in neuroscience was that so often when questions were asked in class, the answer was hands spread wide, "we don't know." I have work to do with learning to deal with uncertainty in daily living but I have no problems with it in my general understanding.

I’ve realized through this discussion that between Epicureanism and neuroscience there’s a whole lot of interesting questions about the function of the senses.

Quote from Cassius

I think that's the first way you have to understand Epicurus. When he says things to the effect that "pleasure is the goal of life" he's contrasting that conclusion to (1), (2), or (3) above. He's not prescribing a medication or giving precise clinical advice for particular person to follow at a particular moment.

I would take for granted that those three should be rejected (although it’s clear that others don’t think the same.) I hold reason in high regard, but I can’t imagine how it could be an end instead of a tool.

If I’d been asked a week ago “What is the goal of human life?” I would’ve said something like “to live as much of your life as you can in support of your values” but my “values” which I talk about a lot are unrelated to the Stoic virtues (for one, they’re individual - like playing with my family and creating - and probably would be more closely related to Epicurean desires) Drilling down to why living according to my values was the goal, I would’ve probably ended on “because those are the things that make me happy”

Quote from Don

Quote from reneliza

So I have a degree in neuroscience (which does contribute to my understanding that the mind/soul are of nature)

You might be interested in some of my posts and others on the brain research of Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett

https://www.epicureanfriends.com/wcf/index.php?…Feldman+Barrett

as well as Dr. Anna Lembke.

I found both of their books to be fascinating and, for me, to have some real intersections with Epicurean philosophy. Barrett and Feldman aren't Epicurueans, but I found their work to be helpful in bringing Epicuruean insights into a modern framework.

I'll definitely look into that!

My husband brings up that I have described to him the experience of feeling as though I am a brain living inside a meat mecha and that this is very likely influencing my experience of pleasure here and a) I deeply agree b) this is something I'll definitely ponder more

I did start reading DeWitt today! (I haven't read the Nietzsche)

I haven't even read the letter to Menoeceus yet because I was waiting to have a little bit better foundations...but then this thread popped up and I couldn't help but ask haha

So I have a degree in neuroscience (which does contribute to my understanding that the mind/soul are of nature) and that's where a lot of my curiosity comes from. A person with perfectly functioning eyes and optic nerves with occipital lobe damage that leaves them blind would be unable to experience visual pleasure. But then there's all kinds of other brain weirdness where we may have awareness of something but not be aware that we are aware (or at least we may be partially unaware of our awareness - seen in split brain experiments).

I didn't really realize this when I first posted earlier today, but I think my question stems from my own background of anxiety and depression leading to regular dissociation in avoidance of everyday pains (which of course in turn also made me unaware of everyday pleasures, and sometimes even more luxurious pleasures like a bowl of ice cream eaten while doomscrolling.)

Is pleasure still pleasurable if not appreciated by the mind?

I think this goes to what Kalosyni said about the Epicurean definition of pleasure, if I understand them. A year ago I would've thought that pleasure is just good feeling, and that whether or not I paid attention to it didn't really make any difference. But if I understand correctly, pleasure is enjoyment is happiness, so this whole article is unnecessary. Except that a lot of people DO misunderstand what is meant as pleasure, so the overall point in the article could be useful even though it's expressed very poorly.

Although I've had many "pleasures" in life (honestly it has never occurred to me to think of pleasure as bad so that wouldn't be a risk for me) I haven't experienced very much pleasure due to repeated distraction.

In other words, I haven't had much enjoyment and the pleasures have been hollow not because there's anything wrong with pleasure - or because of "higher" or "lower" forms of pleasure, but just because I haven't given them enough attention to appreciate them. The sensual experience of eating a bowl of ice cream holds very little pleasure for me if I don't also have a mental appreciation of the experience. (this is my experience)

Even though I've only started learning about Epicureanism in the past week, I've started doing this - to stop and smell the roses as people say - for the last few months and it has vastly improved my enjoyment of life in general and most things in it. It has even drastically reduced my anxiety and depression so that the overall everyday pain is far less and therefore it's less tempting to cover it up in the first place unless I'll actually get some pleasure by the cover itself. So I will continue to indulge (though ideally not overindulge) in pleasure, but with an emphasis on experiencing and truly enjoying that pleasure.

I get the impression based on other replies here that the Epicurean take is that that enjoyment IS pleasure and so the Atlantic article is silly for trying to demonize pleasure (I agree) while encouraging enjoyment which is itself pleasure - the thing they were just demonizing. My point is only that a year ago I would've told you that I had all kinds of pleasure in my life - but I really did need the reminder to actually enjoy things instead of mindlessly consuming, and in the world we live in I think a LOT of people do (although, preferably without the suggestion that we eschew pleasure which doesn't even make sense in context).

That was a lot of words to say the same thing in a lot of different ways in the hopes that one of them adequately conveys what I'm trying to say I think I'm coming upon something more, but I'll wait until I've read more and have a deeper understanding of Epicurus's original teachings

I have a question on the "all pleasure is good" that seems partially relevant here. I hope I can express it properly. It's less about "every pleasure is good yet not every pleasure would be chosen" and is more about whether a pleasurable sensation in the body is even a pleasure at all if it's not appreciated by the mind.

What about things where the actual experience of the sensation can vary depending on context? There's plenty of things that could fall into this category but one of the most concrete examples I thought of was this chicken processing factory near my parents' home. I would regularly drive past and at first think "Mmmm that smells good," but once I remembered it wasn't a chicken restaurant and was instead basically a chicken factory it turned my stomach and the previously appealing odor became disgusting.

True, I would choose not to engage in the experience altogether, but is that original sensation still "good"? Is masochistic fulfillment "evil"? If the sheer sensations would be painful or pleasurable out of context then how do we classify them (especially as in my example where the context is initially unknown)?

Or is this just unnecessary overanalysis which I do quite enjoy?

Quote from Don

Quote from reneliza

it took only about 1/4 of a book on Seneca to determine that this guy Epicurus who he kept quoting (favorably yet still with great disdain??) seemed way more interesting to me

Ditto

Glad I'm not alone!

Hello!
My background in Epicurean education is almost none. I'll share what background I do have with the note that this isn't an endorsement of any particular part of it.

I knew of Epicureanism basically as the modern understanding: an appreciation for fine food and drink, but through the YouTube channel PhilosophyTube got a (very small) bit more understanding. PhilosophyTube did awake in me a greater interest in hedonism and I jokingly asked my husband if it was possible to be a hedonist and a stoic.

Meanwhile, I started using cognitive techniques to improve my mental state and decided to look deeper into Stoicism. Although I do find great value in Stoic practices, it took only about 1/4 of a book on Seneca to determine that this guy Epicurus who he kept quoting (favorably yet still with great disdain??) seemed way more interesting to me.

I found this site via the podcast, and I'm only about 3 episodes in, so I'm still VERY early in the learning process.

Here, I mostly intend to listen and learn and hopefully ask some questions, and I greatly appreciate the reading list offered above because it has been tough for me to find good resources given that most primary sources have been lost to history and all modern focus in ancient philosophies seems to be on Stoicism. I'm grateful to have a place to learn more.