Posts by DaveT

Quote from Cassius

If what you mean is that your first priority is to seek out and eliminate any bodily or mental pain from your life before you turn to any pleasure, and that in the process of eliminating those pains it makes no difference what pleasures you choose to employ, then that's quite a stark statement.

No, what I mean is that once you eliminate pain(s) you have pleasure automatically and immediately. You don't need to do anything to turn to pleasure. Now, take that short explanation and see how I don't care about any discussion of kinetic and katastematic pleasures. Epicurus is telling me quite clearly that absent pain, I have pleasure.

Quote from Cassius

arguably someone who used your formula would never pursue roses or music until they reach a state of perfect painlessness.

And here, I given my explanation above, I reject that argument. Never say never and by the way who care? I am in a state of pleasure which I can increase any way I choose within the hedonic calculus.

Quote from Cassius

The question is whether it is correct to erect the elimination of any pain of body or mind as the "prime directive"

Again, given my clarification in the first paragraph, it is simplycommon sense that tells everyone that no one can eliminate every pain. Within that common sense, Epicurus saw and thought out and wrote the words of PD 3. P.S. the use of the word erect has humorous implications!!!

Quote from Cassius

I suspect you will say that that is not what your formulation is doing, but my personal opinion is that it comes very close to saying that, and I would not agree that that would be the correct conclusion. Sometimes we choose pain in order to avoid a worse pain or achieve a greater pleasure.

So, again, now that you see your initial suspicion is off, and that I clarified my meaning for you in the first paragraph, I hope your opinion is worth reconsideration. Certainly choosing pain as you ended this paragraph is completely consistent with my thesis of the common sense application and of Epicurus' plain meaning of the words of PD 3.

Honestly, I hope my explanations of your assumptions might modify your conclusions that what I have expressed is not in either of those two camps which I quote below.

Quote from Cassius

Dave's post has me focused on trying to identify what I see to be two different camps with two different sets of foundational premises:

***

So might it in fact be something that can be summarized by viewing the issue as being between the competing goals of:

Maximizing Net Pleasure vs Minimizing Total Pain

It is not maximizing as I see it. It is removing or minimizing pain with the result of pleasure using the explicit words of PD 3.

To the Forum generally and Cassius. My quote insertion function isn't cooperating so I'm cutting and pasting you from above: "THe only record of Hiernymous of Rhodes is what Cicero says about him as explained in our earlier thread (note from 2019) with the citations. Hieronymus of Rhodes embraced "absence of pain" but not pleasure, as Cicero explains."

I read the thread you link attached of your 2019 thread Are You Epicurean Or Hieronymian?

Not to nit-pick since none of us on the Forum certainly have the highest level of confidence when Cicero or any other ancient person paraphrases what others have allegedly written. We luckily have some original Epicurus in the absence of first hand Hieronymus.

My main points, questions and propositions

When I read that linked material I noticed it begins with a typo when referring to pleasure upon citing PD 3. The corrected sentence at PD 03 is

"The limit of quantity in pleasures is the removal of all that is painful. Wherever pleasure is present, as long as it is there, there is neither pain of body, nor of mind, nor of both at once."

The plural word pleasures is important to me when contrasted to the typo'd singular word. AND I'll say why in a moment by focusing on the words limit, quantity and pleasures.

Parenthetically, allow me to note that I agree with our newly stated Editorial Policy of the forum. And in that regard, I view the comparison of kinetic vs katastematic pleasures to be an unhelpful diversion from what is most important to me.

Similarly I believe debate of whether pain removal is primary before pleasure is a wasteful debate that obscures the plain meaning of Epicurus' words. Being pain free is the means to enjoying the goal of pleasure.

Please humor me here.

You recently said something I totally agree with. You said in post #6 discussing Aronsen's book: "If our goal is to better the lives of real people rather than pinheads, it's far better to stick to basic points and then work to apply them in real life, not just debate about words and definitions."

Your words address my focus and personal challenge when applying Epicurus. I want a simple description I can repeat to myself on reaching the highest good for happiness. Okay that's not so simple, so let me explain further.

I am struck by the difficulty in matching the pleasure/pain calculus to real life. And the rubber hits the road for me by looking at Epicurus' exact words, not-- repeat NOT at commentary by academics and authors who interpret Epicurus' words one way or the other for their own purposes.

So, tell me if my understanding is wrong when I read PD 3 where it says: "The limit of quantity in pleasures is the removal of all that is painful.", and I think the following: the "limit (singular word) of quantity in pleasures (plural words) is equal but not more than the simple act of removing that singular thing or state I'm experiencing that is painful.

In other words, I can do no better looking for one pleasure alone or added to another and another in order to solve my pain than if I simply address the pain I'm experiencing and rid myself of it partially or completely.

I think Epicurus knew he could not list all pleasures available to us. They are uncountable and unlimited. But he did specifically say if you remove pain it matches the maximum level of all the pleasures you might find. He defines and counts the one state, freedom from pain, that anyone can recognize and pursue.

I think this focus allows me to not worry about which pleasure, or how much of it will make me happy more often than sad when navigating the reality of every day life. This focus tells me to first notice what is painful bodily and/or mentally and address the removal of that condition. When I do that I'm left with the various stages of pleasure and happiness however I define it.

Quote from Cassius

That substitution of "absence of pain" in the place of pleasure is exactly what Hieronymus of Rhodes did, but which it's amply clear that Epicurus refused to do.

Epicurus' logic in rejecting Hieronymus's view is easy to understand:

When you get to the limit of pleasure you haven't left behind all the bodily and mental pleasures you've accumulated to get there. You still have those pleasures -- it's just that you're now experiencing those same pleasures without any mixture of pains.

Sorry, I'm not following the statements in each paragraph. Am I missing the trees for the forest? Do you have citations of the Hieronymus of Rhodes reference? Are you disputing his wording or the concept, which I don't think you are disputing the concept.

And do you have a citation of Epicurus specifically rejecting Hieronymus on that point?

And after addressing the first two points, please address the last paragraph above. Are you paraphrasing? The phrases: limit of pleasure, leaving behind pleasures you've accumulated to get there, you're still experiencing those same pleasures without any admixture of pains, what point do they suffort?

Cassius  Pacatus I suppose I above posted more for my personal application of Epicurus' doctrines to my everyday life. My life observations myself, and of other people are the source of the questions I raised.

I have no quarrel with the Forum's guidelines as Cassius formulated them. I believe you both implied, the way we adopt and apply the doctrines for ourselves is always a matter of choice based on our own ability to independently reason out our lifestyle choices.

Respecting the man, and Epicurus' mind, is what the Forum is dedicated to, right? I usually enjoy all the posts, and have no ax to grind, in either direction when it comes to interpreting or commenting on Epicurus. Always the student, me.

I have trouble understanding that explanation of policy. It seems overly rigid.Certainly a person can feel katastematic pleasure over longer periods of time than physical pleasure. Can we agree to that? No one can actually feel physical pleasure over a prolonged time period, but we can't feel prolonged physical contentment I.e.the absence any mental discomfort for a prolonged period. After all, physical pain and discomfort are crucial bodily mechanisms to maintaining good health. So why is it unreasonable to distinguish the two forms of pleasure just within those distinctions?

Quote from Bryan

We do have two complete manuscripts, Codex Oblongus and Codex Quadratus, as well as the partial Gottorpienses -- all Carolingian and from the 800's.

Speaking of the Carolingian period, I recently learned how the Muslim scholars had translated a great deal of Greek writings into Latin (many who lived in Islamic Spain). I wonder why, other than that they abhorred Epicurean denial of life after death, they didn't translate Epicurus, too. Perhaps all of the loss occurred before the 800's to 1000 CE period. Anyway, it is a question that likely can't be answered

Joshua Thanks for the research above. So how do you think the Romans who were not literate in Greek learned Epicureanism in the Gardens in Italy? Historically I understand that the southern portions of the Italian peninsula and perhaps Sicily had been been colonized by the Greeks. So perhaps the common people in the south were still speaking or understanding some Greek, if not being bilingual, for verbal learning of Epicurean philosophy. What do you think?

Quote from Don

I've heard the estimates are that we only have about 1-5% of ALL texts from the ancient world. (One source example)

Astonishing that the single copy of Lucretius was found. Another thing this made me think about was that probably the number of illiterates who learned by someone reading the texts or booklets decreased when Epicureanism moved to the Latin language of Rome. Unless they were translated into Latin, probably only the few educated elites were privy to the teachings of the Garden. Do you or anyone have knowledge of how that went in the Roman language areas?

Kalosyni Thank you for the history of papyrus and writing tools etc. Very interesting. Although the topic of the literate and illiterate probably can't be resolved, I'm curious on your source materials on Epicurus' financial holdings and his income and the bearing they had on copying his work? If I remember DeWitt, in the beginning of his work he said Epicurus' father was an elementary school teacher, a profession that was looked down upon before and after the family was evicted from Samos. I'm thinking he was not wealthy, but I don't know. Also, if I remember DeWitt, he indicated that at the time handbooks were written and disseminated by him, as well as perhaps copied by his students for us to prosyletize new converts. Assuming they were on papyrus, and they were short lessons so to speak, I can understand why they didn't survive.

But the fact that we have so many examples of Cicero, and Plato and Aristotle's work has me puzzled still. I guess I can buy into the hypothesis that the Christians burned the copies, except that they had no real influence in the Roman empire until the end of the 5th century.

As I thought about this question, I remembered that the only way of sharing written scrolls was to have someone manually copy it. Since this likely was an expensive proposition done by skilled scribes (No Jeff Bezos types) there were probably rather few copies made.

So, if the most exact method of teaching from his letters etc was to read off a copy and open the meeting to discussion, I'm thinking it didn't matter whether the students could read or write.

However.... I think an absolute necessity to the teaching and learning process had to be frequent, (dare I say more than weekly) meetings for both the illiterate and illiterate to learn and adopt the lessons from the Garden(s) into daily life.

In addition, if teachings were also done through memorized lessons, a certainly less exact method of passing on the doctrines, etc. repetitive reinforcement was also absolutely necessary.

As an aside to the original question, I'm guessing that only those who were free enough and rich enough to attend, and learn several times a week had the time to spare. Am I wrong to conclude that women were not free to navigate the cities alone so perhaps the enslaved were members of those households where women were free enough from their other duties to attend.

I'm also wondering if the cost of copying was one of the reasons so few of Epicurus' writings were preserved.

I'm with all the comments so far. Perhaps looking beyond the language of the Epicurean and the Stoic we need to consider the hegemon(s) of most ancient Greek philosophy recognized only the very deepest thinkers, Plato's and Aristotle's elites, and perhaps Epicurus' Wise Man can aspire to achieve the perfect life.

In any defense of Epicurus, I'm happy to rely on the first four Doctrines plus the letter to Menoeceus, especially the explanation of Prudence in the letter.

If the Stoic interlocutor with Matteng is neither an elite student of Stoicism as it has evolved, nor an attentive listener on Epicurean explanations he can't understand that philosophers believed hardly anyone is a perfect practitioner of any philosophical belief, and therefore hardly anyone can live a perfect life in an imperfect world. (For me, no one can)

For the student, for the people working to preserve our best understanding of Epicurus' teaching, the battle is a worthy engagement. For the rest of us the choice of words usually has ideosyncratic meaning as he/she is seeking a happy life and trying to understand the world around us. If the word "flourishing" is such an important word choice for the Stoic to make an argument with the Epicurean, I'd nod my head and say, "Have a nice day." (I say tomato, you say tomatoh)

I was re-reading this interesting thread and would like to make a couple of observations. I have no trouble accepting that avoiding pain can be a prime method, even a goal, of finding pleasure. This would be true either by an isolated act, or concurrently with a pleasurable one.

In his letter to Menoeceus Epicurus said: "“When we say, then, that pleasure is the end and aim, we do not mean the pleasures of the prodigal or the pleasures of sensuality, as we are understood to do by some through ignorance, prejudice, or wilful misrepresentation. By pleasure we mean the absence of pain in the body and of trouble in the soul.”

The point about anyone killing themselves to avoid pain if it was as simple as that to be Epicurean needs some attention for two reasons. First, I think killing oneself is not an option for Epicurus outside of hastening death when death is naturally imminent. Killing oneself outside of that circumstance as a means to seek pleasure, as Epicurus meant it is impossible. It is impossible because you can never experience pleasure if you are dead. Therefore to kill oneself is a violation of Epicurus' teaching of how to attain happiness. You cannot say killing yourself to avoid pain is ever consistent with Epicureanism (with the exception I stated above) either in attacking Epicurus or in ignorantly believing such an act is consistent with Epicureanism.

Quote from Cassius

The point I think needs to be made is that you can't just say that your whole goal is to avoid pain. If so, then you can just kill yourself. Your goal is to live pleasurably, which requires that you live, being alive being a good/pleasurable thing unless you are in a situation where you are guaranteed more pain than pleasure). Treasuring life in such a way is a positive activity.

Secondly in the thread here, as far as the virtues go; I think Epicurus said pursuing one virtue, Prudence is enough.

"Of all this the beginning and the greatest good is prudence. Wherefore prudence is a more precious thing even than philosophy: for from prudence are sprung all the other virtues, and it teaches us that it is not possible to live pleasantly without living prudently and honorably and justly, (nor, again, to live a life of prudence, honor, and justice) without living pleasantly. For the virtues are by nature bound up with the pleasant life, and the pleasant life is inseparable from them.” Letter to Menoeceus.

As a subset of the virtue of Prudence, then, I have no real issue with saying "do no harm" since refraining from harmful behavior is prudent.

Quote from Cassius

I'm not trying to seed this just to start conversation but I can predict who among us might have some interest in this topic so I am going to go ahead and prod:

Pacatus ? Patrikios ? DaveT ?

These are just three that come to mind, but I think this is a basic question that most all of us need to be prepared to answer (if we're not already).

Nice try Cassius but NO. I listened to part of the "debate" and came away with a yawn. I checked out the Wiki pages of both men, too and decided they both prove why many Hellenist philosophers denigrated rhetoricians :). It looked like they were performing to their own followers.

Due respect to anyone taking the question seriously but to me it is not a serious question when as a general proposition. Of course life!

Quote from Cassius

For that reason, we curate the forum along the major lines stressed by advocates such as Lucretius and Diogenes of Oinoanda and Philodemus. For those who want no advocacy and guard rails of any kind, there's always Reddit. Both (and other variations as well) have their legitimate places.

I'm not sure how to take this comment to my statement above. Please explain if you are speaking to me as "one of those"?

Quote from Don

Epicurus' fundamental pivotal importance to me is, at its heart, the firm knowledge that the universe is material, governed by natural laws, not created by supernatural beings, and gods (which are NOT supernatural to him) have no interest in us. I don't need to believe in intermundia, cosmoi, gods, etc. to be an Epicurean living in the 21st century of the common era.

I enjoyed your overall post in which you ended with the above thought. I guess I'm not an Epicurean but rather a student of Epicurean thought and an adopter of many of his methodologies for discovering knowledge.

I appreciate all the comments made on my original questions and observations. I often look for similarities in teachings before and after Epicurus.

I hope this doesn't stir up a hornets nest from this thread (which everyone is probably fatigued over) But, I've begun learning about Plotinus' birthing of Neoplatonism; the eternal One, the Intellect, and the Nous. It seems like some of the arguments made here, supporting Epicurus' righteous belief in the existence of any or all gods got a bad rap from Plotinus who rejected Epicureans.

I don't know if anyone else will chime in, so thank you Cassius . It's so sad that the extent fragments, the letters, and Lucretius are all we have to resolve the issue of how he could believe in gods that neither he or anyone had ever sensed with the five senses, nor could know by prolepsis since no one had ever sensed them by experience.

But since he was acclaimed for speaking frankly, when he says there are gods, to me, he believes they exist without evidence.

If he is being inconsistent in his methodology of discovering the reality of the gods, it does not weaken his reasoning and his reasons to teach careful pleasure is easy and pain is fleeting and avoidable. Those being true, Happiness is achievable. In a way, the apparent inconsistency of methodology illuminates Epicurus' common humanity.

P.S. So, to recap my thoughts underlying the subject here: Epicurus says nothing comes from nothing; atoms are eternal building blocks of all other matter; the soul and the body are one material being; the gods are corporal. So, he thinks they are composed of matter; and they exist blessedly.

Yet, still scratching my head: Under this, his gods being immortal are coexistent with eternal atoms, even though the gods are composed of atoms?

Titus, @Brian, Cassius Thank you for the input to my question of whether or not Epicurus truly believed in the Greek gods' existence.

I still don't understand how Epicurus actually believed there were Greek Gods from the Chat GPT dialogue, or the statements or citations you've provided above.

If no one had ever actually seen the Greek Gods how could Epicurus have believed they actually existed? To rely on their existence because everyone believes in them doesn't seem consistent. Can this question be answered in two, or three or four sentences before being supported by authorities?

Quote from Titus

This ChatGPT dialogue was fun to read. Since I lack deep insight to all of Epicurus' teachings or familiarity with various commentaries' supporting for his belief in the existence of Greek gods (the only ones he knew of, perhaps?) I wonder if the following quote from it is correct.

Quote from Titus

This is why, in Epicurean theology, the argument for the gods is not merely "people have a conception of gods." The stronger claim is that there is a universal and persistent prolepsis of blessed and imperishable beings that survives beneath all the false cultural additions. Whether that argument succeeds is another question, but it is more subtle than simply inferring existence from a concept.

Viewed this way, LLMs may actually illuminate the Epicurean distinction between prolepsis and opinion.

The model's internal representations resemble prolepses.
Its generated outputs resemble opinions.
What it lacks is sensation, the corrective mechanism that Epicurus regarded as essential for separating true opinions from false ones.

At first I thought, well he never experienced a god, so how could he say he knows of them from prolepsis. So I tucked that away and kept reading hoping for an answer to a question I've had for a long time. That is, did he really believe in the gods, or did he know the Greeks would have shut down his school if he disclaimed their existence and not support by evidence from the senses.

And then I came to the ending of the ChatGpt where it said: "For example, all peoples possess some prolepsis of blessed and imperishable gods. Epicurus regarded this as evidence that the gods exist, even if many false opinions are attached to them.

An LLM's internal representations do not have this status. They merely reflect statistical patterns in its training data. If a society collectively believed dragons existed, an LLM would develop a strong representation of dragons without dragons being real."

Did Epicurus then possibly or probably not believe in the Greek gods, but allowed that false opinions of the existence of gods do no harm since they only exist as opinions, and not fact?

Display More

This type of discussion is so interesting to me, but I always need to unpack the definitions of words being used. Here's what I got from Google:

AI is generally classified into three main capability levels:

Artificial Narrow Intelligence (ANI): AI trained to accomplish specific, highly specialized tasks, such as speech recognition, image classification, or playing chess. This is the only type of AI in widespread use today.

Artificial General Intelligence (AGI): A theoretical form of AI that would possess cognitive abilities entirely equivalent to a human, allowing it to perform any intellectual task a human can.

I see that there is no AI existing today that can create anything in the sense of human creativity. AI can repeat what humans have created, and loaded into AI data bases. That is all.

If people can enjoy Elvis Presley in full costume printed onto velour by a human and hung in their bedrooms, who am I to judge their taste? Same goes for anyone enjoying AI random art based on data bases, or short stories generated by random scene selections from data bases.

Will I ever want to use AI as it exists today to expand the germ of an idea I have as a novelist, and then claim the final product was my work alone? No, I can't do it. Pride perhaps but, no.

Can I judge anyone who takes pleasure from reading a novel written mostly by current AI, or any future AI? I think not. Who am I to deny anyone such pleasure? Would I read such a novel written in that fashion? I'd give it a shot, and who knows, perhaps I'd enjoy it.

@TauPhi On being a Greek god. Hell, no! If they were considered corporeal and immortal, sooner or later existence would become a boring repetition of all their yesterdays. If incorporeal, same answer but only half the pleasures until boredom hits!