Posts by DaveT

Quote from Pacatus

Another “interesting take” on Don ‘s position above (which was a game-changer for me), that I came across in my reading. The quote is about the Aristippian Cyrenaics, but seemed to me to be relevant here: some pleasures may not be contingently choiceworthy because they would lead to greater pains – but pleasure itself, in se, is intrinsically choiceworthy.

“In [the example cases, a particular] pleasure is not choiceworthy given the circumstances, since its acquisition involves more than countervailing pains. But it remains choiceworthy for itself and in itself. In other words, its intrinsic ability to motivate choosing is a matter of its self-evident phenomenal character, which is not altered by prudential circumstances.”

– Kurt Lampe, The Birth of Hedonism: the Cyrenaic Philosophers and Pleasure as a Way of Life. [My generalizing edits in brackets.]

Pacatus, I'm not familiar with the Cyreniacs, though I have to say your post brought back a memory and concrete example of this to me. Many years ago, I attended a McKenzie clinic for certain lower back issues. Part of his treatment method involved prescribed body stretches to alleviate physical pain. I was taught to never put up with pain for one minute, but rather do the stretches that were prescribed. We were not to just suffer and wait for the pain to ease.

Quote from Don

I sincerely don't care if Epicureanism is defined as "psychological hedonism" or Axiological hedonism or Ethical hedonism or whatever-ical hedonism or hedonism at all. Epicurus had an insight into the motivation of all living beings that they move toward pleasure and move away from pain, and he used this starting point to shed light on how living beings interact with their world and ultimately what is the goal of life of living beings, with humans being able to take that information and to move toward eudaimonia.

The meaning of the telos or the "supreme good" is that thing which is the telos or the "supreme good" is that for which ALL actions are ultimately motivated by. One may say virtue is their ultimate motivating factor, but why? Keep asking why? And it is going to be that it gives them a sense of satisfaction that they're doing what's right. And what is a sense of satisfaction? It is pleasure. One can dress up their motivation and their rationalizations and their justifications. They move toward the supreme good which is pleasure.

People lie all the time to themselves to get through the day and through their life. People can convince themselves of almost anything!

I am not saying we MUST convince everyone we come in contact with that "Pleasure is the supreme good and why you do what you." We pick our battles. But the more I look at the world and how people act, I can see them trying to comfort themselves, to mask their insecurities, to belittle others to aggrandize their own self-image. They are in pain and are trying to move toward pleasure. The feelings are only two after all. BUT Epicurus calls us to make prudent choices, to live nobly, well, and prudently, to try to fill our lives with more pleasure than pain. That's what I believe ALL living beings are doing. And Epicurus was brilliant in his attempt to explain this. Not everyone is going to listen. Not everyone is going to be convinced. Not everyone is going to accept that universal truth. But that is exactly what I believe is going on in the psyche of every living being.

To me, this is a near perfect recitation of what I look for in Epicureanism. I look at every living thing as seeking to maximize their potential (for humans--happiness). This is the beauty of the teaching. Indeed, one might say everything down to the smallest particle of matter or energy is following its nature to maximize its potential to be what it is. That looks a bit weird as I write it, but nothing needs to be sentient to naturally seek its potential, its highest potential as declared by Epicurus.

Quote from Joshua

Quote from DaveT

He taught that there is no un-caused cause; there is nothing that comes from nothing.

This is getting into semantics, but one could perhaps say that the atoms themselves are the uncaused causes.

Cicero In his De Finibus says this;

Quote

"The swerving [of the atoms] is itself an arbitrary fiction; for Epicurus says the atoms swerve without a cause, — yet this is the capital offence in a natural philosopher, to speak of something taking place uncaused."

However, the atoms are uncaused if we are speaking in terms only of their existence. The particular motion of the atoms is partially caused by an infinite regress of other causes (an endless chain of billiard balls bouncing, hooking, clinging, separating, and hurling apart through the void inertially), and partially, as in the swerve, their motion is caused by their own nature.

I thought that his conception that nothing is un-caused was a rebuke to those who believed that an omnipotent being created things. Of course in modern knowledge, matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Our understanding of our world and universe has depended on this and it has been verified to the degree that it is a scientific certainty. I also thought Epicurus' conception of atoms was what we now know as molecules. The logic was perfect and certain, but was limited by his limited technology.

Such an interesting topic containing so many variables that raise new issues!

I'm new to the study of Epicurus' actual teaching. But here's what I get out of the texts linked to this website. He taught that there is no un-caused cause; there is nothing that comes from nothing. His gods were not supernatural. They were immortal beings who existed in and above the earth. They could be prayed to for intervention in earthly affairs, but only intervention through natural causes rather than magic. That's why, for instance, blood sacrifices were done, to gain favor, and avoid disfavor (originally, perhaps as a last ditch act that coincided with the coincidental coming of a rain after a drought) .

As for the gods created by humanity over the last ten thousand years, the variety and involvement of those gods sometimes coalesced into religions managed by priests and kings to define virtues either by experience of what works to keep the peace among the populace, or by interpretation of non-material (faith based) unexplained occurrences within the natural world to keep peace, order and solidarity.

As peace keeping tools, the virtues discovered by humans, served to solidify the community to prosper and defend itself against outsiders.

I just don't see Epicureanism as either a faith, or a religion in the sociological sense. It is his explanation of natural human behavior, practiced by everyone, that includes the value of avoiding pain, accepting temporary pain and finding happiness in its absence. Certainly, if a group of people in a community practiced the individual nature of his teaching while exercising his virtue of prudence, happy and loving communities would result.

And in closing, science, in the true sense of being a method of discovering truth about the physical universe, by rational methods, can never be a religion any more than can Epicueanism.

I'm looking forward to hearing anyone's thoughts how my rather terse analysis can be clarified or corrected.

Hello, Martin. I appreciate your welcome message. I first became familiar with Epicurus' through Matthew Stewart's book, Nature's God. He traced the impact of Epicurus' thoughts in De Rerum Natura through early American history and it's impact on Thomas Jefferson and other leaders of the revolution in formulating the goals of American national goals of achieving Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness in our founding document, the Declaration of Independence.

As a now retired attorney and an author, I have always been fascinated with the historical underpinnings of the founding of the United States. Now, having been exposed to Epicurus, as well as my own newly begun comparative study of the ancient Greek philosophers with Epicureanism I've happily discovered EpicureanFriends.com and this community. I'm hoping to deepen my understanding of past and present philosophy through this community. Best, Dave