We are now requiring that new registrants confirm their request for an account by email. Once you complete the "Sign Up" process to set up your user name and password, please send an email to the New Accounts Administator to obtain new account approval.
it seems to me that the issue of the proper place of "reason" led to much of the revolt of Epicurus against the positions of Plato and Aristotle.
Well, this is kind of what I'm saying! The cradle argument IS reasoning.
So how would you describe the proper place of reason?
It also is important to remember that Epicurus's problem was with indoctrination within the Platonic educational system: paideia παιδεία is the word he consistently uses.
Right, but if that it is the only issue, then you could look to the "uneducated" for ethical guidance.
Well... Sometimes that might not be such a bad idea.
Right. I'm not bashing the uneducated (in the school-learning sense). But now you guys are changing the terms of the debate.
the cradle argument takes a particular part of nature, and elevates it above the rest.
Yes, the part of nature before human reasoning, with its potential for error, has weighed in with its first opinion - that its own opinion itself can supply a guide to life superior to the feelings of pleasure and pain.
Hmm...disagree, but not sure how to proceed beyond this point.
Is reason fallible, of course. But it's our only tool for judging, and that's what is being done here.
But the cradle argument takes a particular part of nature, and elevates it above the rest. That procedure needs to be justified, because it is making a value judgment.
Edit to finish this thought:
And if an attempt is made to justify that procedure, I think it becomes apparent that there is some faulty reasoning involved. Or at least reasoning with some implications that Epicurus would strongly reject.
I would say that the 'nature as the norm' position is foundational to Epicurus position, so I agree with your comment here that we have to look to the question of whether we should look to Nature or not.
Agreed, but "nature" here really means "the universe". (Right?) Or I think a more useful interpretation in this context would be "reality". I don't see any disagreement on this point.
It also is important to remember that Epicurus's problem was with indoctrination within the Platonic educational system: paideia παιδεία is the word he consistently uses.
Right, but if that it is the only issue, then you could look to the "uneducated" for ethical guidance.
I would say that is not implicit Epicurus' position at all. He was certainly in favor of living in civilization and seems to have enjoyed a good life under the Athenian system, which is not at all a state of nature.
I'm not saying it is implicit in Epicurus' position, but if he used that kind of argument (still unclear to me that he did, but seems at least plausible), it is implicit in the argument. My understanding is that class of argument pre-dated Epicurus. Wouldn't surprise me if it came from Plato, but maybe it was around before him too. I'm pretty sure Plato used an argument about inborn knowledge that we lose touch with as we are corrupted by the physical world. Sounds similar
Here's some controversy for your afternoon! Enjoy! 
So, that "babies" argument...
At first I thought it was merely unconvincing, but I'm starting to think it is actually an argument that is better avoided.
First, does anyone know if we have Epicurus on record using it? I know Cicero puts it in the mouth of Torquatus. I'd guess Lucretius probably used it...you can find anything in that poem! I'm curious to see what the real pedigree of the argument is.
I said earlier, a theory is required before you can interpret facts. I meant "required" literally. It's not just a nice-to-have. You must have one, and if you think you don't have one, you're deceiving yourself - you just haven't made your theory explicit. If "theory" sounds too Platonic, substitute "assumptions".
To give a (hopefully) non-controversial example, one of the assumptions in any kind of "look to nature" argument is that nature is the right place to look. I don't think I've ever heard anyone explain why nature is the right place to look. It's taken for granted. I'm fine with that, because nature IS usually a good place to look, and there aren't too many alternatives.
The argument that we should look to babies reasons (!) that they are in a kind of pure, or uncorrupted state of nature, so should serve as an ethical norm. An obvious corollary is that we shouldn't look to the behavior of more mature humans because they have been corrupted. It's not always clear what the corrupting influence is - I could turn that into another rant.
My problem is with the implicit assumption that any deviation from the original state of nature is necessarily for the worse.
That is a profoundly destructive belief. I feel comfortable calling that idea evil - if not in an absolute sense, certainly in the sense of being anti-human. And not only anti-human, but anti-life of any sort. Life is growth, which is change. The absence of change is death.
Now, I'm not saying the "babies" argument itself is evil...it's a reasonable thing to point to as a piece of evidence. But it has in it a seed of an idea that could be taken in some really bad directions.
choose the alternative we imagine will be most satisfactory
Also, the word "satisfactory" doesn't fully encompass pleasure, happiness, sweetness in life. I have to contemplate and consider that these are my goals, otherwise the value system of "appearances" (status, wealth, high fashion, etc) can distract me from living the best life given my means.
Just to clarify, I didn't attach any special meaning to "satisfactory" there. I'd be perfectly happy to substitute "pleasant" there if we want to stick to Epicurean terms.
Ah! But not all pleasure should be chosen. Do those pleasures I have listed lead to a life of secure pleasure or can they lead to anxiety about the future or how one is perceived by others?
This is a good point. Maybe that's what I was missing.
So everyone is always choosing pleasure, in the broad sense that we always choose the alternative we imagine will be most satisfactory. That much is just logic and introspection, and I think it is undeniably true if you're honest about it.
Then turning to ethics we can talk about whether those choices actually do result in pleasure, in the concrete sense of a good feeling.
That sounds right to me.
In the meantime, I was thinking about the "babies" argument, and I have some serious concerns there, if anyone wants to get into that.
However, I always come back to why anyone does anything
Yes, this is closely related to what I was thinking. It might be the first step.
The problem I foresee is that pleasure becomes almost a formal term. Pleasure could be defined as what anyone chooses. I think that approach is important in some contexts (it's the starting point of causal-realist economics). But Epicurean ethics needs pleasure to do more work than that, so to speak, if it's to provide any sort of guidance.
I don't think that's a corrosive desire at all -- at least it's not corrosive to consider the question and try to come to a resting place on what is possible and what is not.
That remark was an attempt at humor, mostly. Not entirely.
I didn't really expect this to lead to a major discussion. Not that I mind, but I'll need to try to collect my thoughts a bit more to keep this from becoming a rambling stream-of-consciousness on my end.
This is an interesting way to phrase that (and I'm meaning that as a positive thing not a criticism).
Could you share what you think of when you say "theory"? Would you have an example from another philosophy or religion (not that you necessarily agree with; just an example)? Or what you'd want the theory to be in Epicurean philosophy.
Thanks for the kind reply, Don. To answer briefly, I've believe a theory is required to make sense of facts. Facts don't interpret themselves. A theory needs to come first, in some sense. This is not Epicurean exactly, but it seems logically sound.
In the empirical sciences, for example, you don't just start collecting facts and see what you come up with. (Well, some might, but I would say that is not good science.) You start with an idea, and then go looking for facts that would contradict it.
So when Epicureans say to look at nature to see that pleasure is the aim. I wonder if there are useful things we could say prior to looking at nature. So when we do turn our attention to nature, we have a more solid case, than something like, "if you don't see it, I can't explain it to you". Not that we would say it like that, but that's the kind of unsatisfying feeling I get with the "babies" argument.
This is why discussing these things is so helpful. It's on *this* issue where Epicurus stands or falls as a philosopher, and where he breaks the chains of both supernatural religion and false philosophy.
Hmm...yes, it's been a while since I've thought much about the core arguments. I'm still convinced that Epicurus was right, but the arguments that persuaded me before, don't seem as persuasive now.
I feel like I want a theory. A theory grounded in reality, of course, but still a theory. This is might be a corrosive desire.
Ok, I'm going to play devil's advocate a bit.
That's certainly a piece of evidence, but the fact that infants or animals do something hardly proves that rational adult humans do it. Much less that they ought to do it.
I think those things are both true (we do, and we should). I just don't think that particular argument is very convincing to someone who doesn't already agree with the conclusion. Some big logical holes there.
What else have you got?
Edit: Sorry, Joshua , I hope that didn't seem like an assault out of nowhere! I like your connection between the descriptive and normative aspects. I was just wondering if we have any other arguments of Epicurus as to why pleasure? Seems like an important thing to establish, and this argument feels flimsy.
Plato, however, has had no discernable impact on the social sciences beyond providing legitimation to various cliques of demented and often murderous intellectuals
What? What?!?!?! Plato has had no discernable impact??? Strong disagree. It's a good thing I came back to say something about this! 
I mean, I suppose the author could be including Christianity and Marxism in the "various cliques of demented...intellectuals" bucket. But aren't those two of the most influential intellectual movements, like, ever, in recorded history? Maybe I'm missing some, but come on, those two exceptions are HUUUUGE - enough to make nonsense of that entire sentence.
Should have just stuck with the final 2 sentences.
Absolutely agreed on all points in post 62. I presume you saw her article focusing on the stoic angle that is linked in the first post of this thread?
Yes, I did see that. Also a great article.
I love her jabs at Stoicism!
Maybe she would have been better advised to avoid this from a strictly making-friends-and-selling-books perspective, but for me it's the most entertaining part of the book. The Stoic ideas sound so mystical, and utterly ridiculous when you have a witty writer who's sympathetic to Epicurus to make the comparison. (You have done a great job too, Cassius. No offense, but this here's a real, live academic philosopher!)
Too bad she didn't also take on the Platonists though. As trendy at the Stoics have been recently in popular culture, it's the Platonic ideas that are so deeply embedded in the actual culture that are the real problem.
Ha my bad memory prevents me from disagreeing with you about my saying something pessimistic!
But maybe what I said then is something I still repeat - that while this is true sometimes, it's unfortunately not always true -
I don't remember exactly what you said then either. It was probably something a lot like that.
Agreed as to all your counter-points. I didn't say it was fully won, only half. Maybe it's a big half.
[Admin Edit: This thread was branched off after Todd's initial post in the discussion about Emily Austin's "Living For Pleasure."]
Another thing I liked, was her point about psychological hedonism. It's not that we ought to choose pleasure. It's that we do choose pleasure. We can't help it. We just tend to be bad at it, especially when we don't realize that's what we're doing, or we refuse to admit it.
The battle is half won! We don't need to convince people to pursue pleasure. We just need to help them realize they're already doing it, and show them how to do it better!
Full disclosure: I like that one because I tried to argue the same thing to Cassius several years ago when he was saying something pessimistic.
