Posts by Todd

Quote from Don

Quote from Todd

I guess the fundamental problem I have is the idea that living things start good, and then get worse.

Oh, I don't necessarily think good/bad is the way to go. We as humans are observed (especially as children) to instinctively gravitate towards what gives us pleasure (in the widest sense) and to recoil from that which gives us pain. It's not good or bad. That's just what happens. As adults, we should learn - per Epicurus - how to do that skillfully to provide ourselves with a maximally pleasurable life. Some adults find other motivations and stop listening to their pain/pleasure guide.

Yes. I agree with this, and that's what I think makes the cradle argument unnecessary. We all do it, not just infants. I'm perfectly fine with saying, "See, it's easy to see how infants seek pleasure and avoid pain. They have simple goals." You could then say, "Older people are more complicated. They seek pleasure in more advanced ways, and they often appear to seek pain in the short-term. But they hope that will bring them even greater pleasure later."

I think that is a great formulation. It avoids the "infants are just better" problems.

It's looking to the newborn as the pinnacle of humanity, and everything else is corrupt.

It reeks of Plato to me

Quote from Cassius

I take it your ultimate question is probably "Why" should we look to nature at all

No! Emphatically no! I'm all in favor of nature (i.e., the universe, reality). I just think the particular way nature is used in the cradle argument was sort of inherited from other philsophers and not closely examined. I think it deserves some close examination at the very least.

I guess the fundamental problem I have is the idea that living things start good, and then get worse.

Actually, a lot of the time they start good, and get better. Not always. But sometimes. I would even venture to say most of the time.

I hate the idea that such a wonderfully positive philosophy has to be founded on that rotten, pessimistic core assumption.

Hmm...well, I see that Epicurus is solidly in favor of the cradle non-argument.

And since he refuses to even allow it to be an argument, I guess I can only say I disagree.

I guess I could even go further and say that since it isn't an "argument", and no reasoning was used to arrive at it, then it can't possibly have any other implications. That addresses my original concern with the cradle argument. It's not an argument. Solved.

Seems like it would make it difficult to engage with others though. Not sure? Want to discuss? Nah. Come back when you agree.

And I'm not even saying I disagree with the conclusion. I just think there is a better way of getting to it. Or should be - not to say I have one ready to go.

Quote from Cassius

So how would you restate your concern Todd, that looking to examples of people who have not had the time or exposure to ground their actions on "abstract reasoning" is a poor idea for getting at examples of the calling of Nature?

Why is that a poor way of looking at the question? Because they are not "educated" in some goal other than the one they were born with?

I would state my concern more or less the way I did above. Looking to a supposedly uncorrupted state of nature is problematic.

If you want to be more specific about what is corrupted and why, as you seem to be with the idea of "uneducated", I would be on board with that, although I personally don't think the solution is in that direction, because the reasoning is going to be even more involved. That is a very different thing than just pointing at babies though.

Maybe this will be clarifying: In your opinion, is the cradle argument an example of "reasoning"?

If yes, then I would expect an Epicurean to be suspicious, and proceed with caution. We can't be slaves to authority, even if the authority is Epicurus. (Edit: that sounds like something Epicurus might have actually said.)

If no, then what do you call it? I think further discussion is not likely to be fruitful in this case.

I feel like this is going in circles.

My reading of DeWitt is that reason is actually very important to Epicurus, it just can't be allowed to run rampant over the data of reality the way Plato used it. (Hope that's a decent summary.)

But that's what I'm trying to say! Reason is essential. It's not "bad". It's unavoidable. It just has to be used appropriately. And the cradle argument is an example of reasoning that is NOT being used carefully.

You sort of said above that reason is a corrupter of children. And now you are quoting DeWitt back at me. This is getting confusing.

LOL - Tranquility Now! Tranquility Now!

Quote from Cassius

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?

Quote from Don

Quote from Todd

Quote from Don

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.

Quote from Cassius

Quote from Todd

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.

Quote from Cassius

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.

Quote from Don

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.

Quote from Cassius

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.

Quote from Kalosyni

Quote from Todd

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.

Quote from Don

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.

Quote from Don

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.

Yes, precisely Charles

Quote from Cassius

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.

Quote from Don

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.

Quote from Cassius

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.