Posts by Todd

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.

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.

Quote from Cassius

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.

Quote from Cassius

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.

Quote from Cassius

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.

Thanks, Don. It's good to be back.

I'm not done reading it yet, but here are the things I want to say so far.

BTW, I think the book is outstanding, so my criticisms should be considered in that context

1) My biggest complaint: while I believe the author is making an honest effort to be non-political, I don't think she does a great job of it. Granted, it is a tall order nowadays to say meaningful things without offending someone. But it makes the book less useful as a tool for introducing people to Epicurus.

2) My next biggest complaint is that she seems to be putting words in Epicurus mouth at times. She'll say, "Epicurus believed X," and I'll think to myself, "Well, maybe, but that's new to me." Footnotes, or explanations would have been appreciated.

3) My favorite quote so far: "If you are always satisfied, then you do not die dissatisfied." This quote, and her chapter on desiring endless life made a lot of sense of to me, regarding why you shouldn't fear death. The previous arguments I'd heard always fell kind of flat.

4) Another thing that caught my attention...I'm paraphrasing here, and probably reading a bit more into it than what she actually said, but, "Unhappiness manifests in behavior, and thereby makes it possible to analyze objectively." This seems like an interesting way of getting from formal ethical principles to concrete advice for how to live. It was new to me, anyway.

5) I noticed some previous comments about her use of "extravagant desires". I also think that has too much of a negative connotation. I will note in her defense, that she says in a footnote that she had misgivings too. FWIW, inspired by her use of extravagant, I am using "luxurious desires" in my notes. You're welcome.

Hello again!

I had an account here a few years ago, but I wasn't active, and eventually deleted it as part of some housekeeping.

However, I just discovered the Austin book, and it practically compelled me to create a new account just to talk about it with people who care about that kind of thing.